[CCWG-ACCT] Individual ICANN Board Members removal requirements

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Jul 18 11:21:54 UTC 2015


I am writing to strongly indicate my amazement that some CCWG participants
(all categories of participants) thinks SO/AC should be allowed to remove
its appointing members unconditionally (i.e without any other SO/AC input),
especially considering that CCWG has determined to go the "Community
Mechanism as Sole Member" makes this even more strange. Here are a few of
the reasons why i think this is totally inappropriate as i don't think
there is need list several reason for this to be compelling:

- Board members acts in the interest of the organisation including the
community, its not appropriate to create a representative board and i think
that is just what we would have done by permitting such removal

- Since board members acts in the interest of the community, it should
require same to remove it.

- The appointing body post-transition will be CMSM and it will require the
same CMSM to remove

- Allowing such individual SO/AC removal would also put nomcom elected
members at disadvantage/advantage (depending on how it is viewed)

- SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the concept of
"Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply indicates that
appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM (even though
individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the board
collectively why should we not so same for removal

- It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers without
the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't know of
any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members based
organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually certain
number of members.(including if it were board removing its member)

Overall i am not against board removal, i am however against board remove
by individual SO/AC. At best they can initiate and when it gets to the CMSM
level the whole community threshold to exercise the "member" should be

It is my hope that the Co-Chairs would understand these points and also
appreciate the fact that consensus is not entirely by numbers.



*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150718/9b85814b/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list