[CCWG-ACCT] Individual ICANN Board Members removal requirements

Sat Jul 18 15:37:04 UTC 2015

 Part of the community is saying removal of board members should be
> questioned by CMSM before CMSM exercises such power, while other part of
> the community are saying CMSM should not question such move from respective
> SO/ACs

For a member or members appointed by a particular SO/AC, the SO/AC will
have the right to remove that member without any questioning or
interference from other SO/ACs (or the CMSM as a whole.  I don't think I
heard any significant support for questioning or interference by other
SO/ACs (or the CMSM as a whole) in this scenario.

This is distinct from the issue of "Total (board) Recall."

Greg

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Maybe the "agreement" i used may have seem to imply that CMSM would have
> to formerly gives its stamp on respective SO/AC appointment. Thats was not
> my intent and i apologise if you read it that way. I will try again. For
> clarity, below is what i currently understand:
>
> - Post-Transition, ICANN will become a member organisation
> - Its a member that exercise community powers including appointing and
> removing board members
> - The community currently agrees to put a process that ensures current
> appointment process is not questioned by CMSM even though its technically
> the member that appoints
> - Part of the community is saying removal of board members should be
> questioned by CMSM before CMSM exercises such power, while other part of
> the community are saying CMSM should not question such move from respective
> SO/ACs
>
> Can you please tell me which of the 4 items above is incorrect as you seem
> to have emphatically stated?
>
> Regards
>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Seun,
>>
>> That is absolutely incorrect.  What you state is not a "pass-through" at
>> all.  This has to be a pure pass-through, and there must be no implications
>> from that.
>>
>> There is no such "indirect agreement."  And if that needs to be
>> explicitly spelled out, it should be.  A SO/AC's appointment is a SO/AC's
>> appointment, no more and no less.  The SO/AC therefore has the absolute
>> discretion to remove their appointed members, and the CMSM has no say in
>> the matter, just as they have no say in the appointment.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not Seun, but it's clear to me that for appointments, it is (a) and
>>>> not (b).  In other words, the CMSM is a pure pass-through of SO/AC board
>>>> appointments, and has no capacity to debate or vote on a particular SO/AC's
>>>> appointments.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct! and by such CMSM pass through, the SO/AC is indirectly agreeing
>>> that the particular board member will act in the interest of CMSM (the
>>> organisation/community) and so the removal process should require
>>> confirmation from CMSM that the board indeed violated such community
>>> interest (as defined in the bylaw)
>>>
>>> I think its important we note that no single SO/AC will have a right to
>>> legally appoint/remove post-transition.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <
>>>>> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seun, my message was only about appointments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects a
>>>>>> Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the other
>>>>>> SO/ACS vote not to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a or b?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure i got your option "b" correctly. It is my understanding that
>>>>> if SO or AC selects board members post-transition they will be doing so as
>>>>> CMSM (since thats the only mechanism to formerly appoint and remove members)
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, i think one point from Jordan's summary would be sufficient
>>>>> for me as it concerns board removal requirements:
>>>>>
>>>>> *1. Consultation requirement added*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered,
>>>>>> there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the
>>>>>> matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just for record, i am more about the removal process and not the
>>>>> appointment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji <
>>>>>> seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Alan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg <
>>>>>>> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be
>>>>>>>> required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it
>>>>>>>> would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint
>>>>>>>> would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or
>>>>>>> Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments
>>>>>>> were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below
>>>>>>> as presented by legal council:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM:
>>>>>>>  - Set up community mechanism as sole member
>>>>>>> - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors
>>>>>>> - Address membership structure with one member
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of
>>>>>>> assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed
>>>>>>> appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is
>>>>>>>> simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on my above i hope you get my point now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to
>>>>>>> happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the
>>>>>>> moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of
>>>>>>> other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often
>>>>>>> than we may have thought.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need to know know every board member removed is removed because
>>>>>>> he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she
>>>>>>> did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be
>>>>>>> a second reason)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  - 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)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *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 !
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *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 !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *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/aeadb1b4/attachment.html>