ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

  • To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
  • From: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:10:41 +0100
  • In-reply-to: <D2ED28CC.AF069%jbladel@godaddy.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <100BE3BA-F799-42F7-95E6-01C9EA70EEF1@sanchez.mx> <D2ED28CC.AF069%jbladel@godaddy.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
> It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published
> the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of
> a Board disagreement later in the process.

Isn't the board opinion simply just that - an opinion (maybe
belonging in with the minority statements)?

There is of course the possibility that they invoke the magic
phrase "global public interest", but that requires 2/3 majority
of the board, and leads to a formal dialogue with the CCWG. Am
I correct in assuming any amendments would then go back to the
chartering organisations for approval one more time?

        Julf
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>