[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #14 24 February

[Greg Shatan]

Bruce,

Recall elections do occur in the US, albeit relatively infrequently, and
the right to have a recall election is generally a state law issue.  The
Governor of Wisconsin survived a recall election in 2012:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall_election,
 There are a fair number of lower-profile, more local recall elections each
year in the US, and some do succeed:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election>.

Greg

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Tonkin <
Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Hello James,
>
>
>
> >>  There are parallels / analogs to both of your positions in the US,
> where some states provide judges a lifetime appointment, and others require
> them to stand for election.  Life (or exceptionally long) terms of office
> do not ensure that the official is responsive to the wishes of the
> public/Community, while subjecting judges to election raises criticisms of
> "politicizing" the judiciary.
>
> Well Board members currently have 3 year terms.
>
> Do you have examples in judicial or political systems in the USA where the
> electorate can recall their person at will at any time?
>
> I think in Australia if an elected official is found guilty of a criminal
> offence they need to stand down - but I am not aware of mechanisms for the
> electorate to recall their politicians otherwise.    I assume )that there
> are probably ways for the parliament to at least suspend a member based on
> their conduct.    There have been cases over the past few years when a few
> elected officials have held the balance of power between two major
> parties.  In some instances these members have not voted in a way that
> their electorate liked, and then did not get returned in the next election.
>
>
> >>  Recognizing this, we should probably err on the side of ensuring
> individual members to be responsive to their segment of the community.
>
> Yes-  I agree that is important and could be part of a code of conduct.
>  It is important for Board members to continue to actively engage with the
> segment of the community that appointed them.   We do encourage Board
> members to attend functions outside of ICANN Board meetings to get to know
> the community issues.
>
> >>    Second, Board members should be in regular communication with their
> community to explain/defend their votes.
>
> Agreed - also something that is probably worth including in a code of
> conduct.
>
>
> >>  And finally, as Alan noted, very few issues would ever be decided by
> such a slim margin.  If any vote is cutting it that close, that should be
> an indication to the Board to keep working towards furthering a compromise.
>
>
> Yes - I wasn't envisaging that a Board member would be recalled just
> because their vote would have changed the result on a particular matter.
> I was more concerned when the community chooses to send a "message" that
> they are uncomfortable with a Board position by recalling their member.   A
> little like the way some countries recall their ambassadors to another
> country to protest an action of that country.       I know in the past that
> some Board members felt they had to vote in a particular way because of
> perceived pressure from their electorate (mainly related to fear of not
> being re-elected), and that they felt that this was not in the public
> interest.   This has sometimes led to abstentions.  It didn't affect the
> majority position.   I can personally say that I have never experienced
> pressure from the GNSO community, but I do try to keep in regular  contact
> with all of the stakeholder groups and constituencies.
>
> Steve Crocker as chair certainly tries to get matters to as close to
> unanimous as possible before putting the matter to a vote - so some matters
> get carried across for more than one meeting until that situation happens.
>  So yes - it is a rare case where any matter is decided by a simple
> majority.    Unfortunately this often appears to the public that all
> matters are "rubber-stamped" as the workshop discussions are not
> particularly visible.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>



-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150301/ea6cd840/attachment.html>