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

James M. Bladel jbladel at godaddy.com
Mon Mar 2 09:03:54 UTC 2015


And perhaps the most famous example of a successful recall effort would be the election that removed California governor Gray Davis, and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_California_recall

Thanks--

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

On Mar 1, 2015, at 18:27, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



--

Gregory S. Shatan * 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<mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>

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

www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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/20150302/76f4a4fb/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list