[CCWG-ACCT] Section 5B - community powers - consolidated draft

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 05:41:55 UTC 2015

Thanks for the share Jordan. Could you kindly confirm if any of the
following is not correct:
- The community forum will allow for any member of SO/AC to participate and
not selected few
- That the SO/AC intending to remove its board member would not only use
the community forum as announcement formality but rather state convincing
rationale to the community
- That the community forum could serve as an opportunity to convince the
petitioning SO/AC to desist from(or encourage) proceeding with the removal
- That the community forum will be held in a most efficient manner; for
instance, it would make no economic sense to have multiple community forums
in a year as a result of varying times of petition from the SO/AC (although
I read that community forum will hold during the 3rd ICANN meeting but
sections as quoted below creates the confusion:

"Where such a  call  to  remove a  director  meets  the required  threshold
is  announced, within  fifteen days  a  meeting  of the  ICANN community
forum.... will be convened"

So how will this workout if a petition is made the February for instance,
considering 3rd ICANN meeting is around October.

 On 30 Jul 2015 12:51 am, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> Hi all
> Attached are the community powers papers combined into one document, and
> benefiting from the latest legal review and updates following our last
> call. This is for discussion in our next CCWG call/s.
> *I draw your attention in particular to two points:*
> ** in the *"removing individual ICANN directors"* paper (section 5B.3)
> there was no limit on the number of times people could seek the removal of
> a director: if a vote failed, a new petition could happen immediately. *I
> have suggested there should be a standdown period of six months - if a vote
> to remove an individual director fails, a new petition could not be lodged.* It
> doesn't seem fair to allow the community to simply wear down an elected
> director by attrition like this.
> ** in *"recall of the ICANN Board" *paper (section 5B.4), there was a
> weirdness in the *petitioning*. We agreed that two SOs or ACs must
> petition to trigger this, at least one of which needed to be an SO, but the
> paper had a legacy oddness that 2/3 of the SOs and ACs would have to sign
> on to the petition. This was the same threshold as the actual decision. *So
> I have deleted it.*
> The changes to the Budget paper also clarify the separateness of decisions
> re IANA budget and ICANN budget.
> Redline and clean versions attached. Please treat the clean version as the
> authoritative one. The redline includes all changes other than formatting
> and minor word changes that don't change substance, as far as I know.
> cheers
> Jordan
> --
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
> +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
> *A better world through a better Internet *
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150730/cbe1b4df/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list