[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions

Sat Apr 9 07:23:34 UTC 2016

Hi Seun, all,
in the document circulated by Bernie a while ago, we have offered a reworded answer to the EC consent question:

***
The Board always had the power to remove directors. The CCWG recommends two community powers on removing individual directors and recalling the entire Board. However, the previously existing right of the Board to remove directors was neither removed nor altered by the CCWG recommendations. The CCWG asks the lawyers to ensure that this right for the Board will remain in tact and include required language in the Bylaws.

However, concerns have been expressed that there might be issues when the community tries to seat Board members and then the Board removes those board members instantly. We kindly ask the lawyers to comment on ways, if any, to mitigate that risk without changing the substance of the recommendations.

***

As we are working on the implementation of our recommendations and since our report did not include changes to the Board’s power to remove colleagues,  still struggle with the notion of requiring active participation of the EC.

Having said that, I understand the issue raised about immediate removal of those directors by the Board that the EC tries to place on the Board. However, I am not sure our response should be to change the Board process. If a rogue Board tries to prevent the EC from seating Board members of their liking by removing them straight away, we should remove the Board.

I think that changing the Board process would not address the root cause of the issue, which would be a Board not playing by the rules.

Best,
Thomas

> Am 09.04.2016 um 06:23 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This implies that you(some) don't think board should be able to remove it's members. While I wonder why you have such view, I don't think that its a question/response we should be sending to the lawyers as it is a decision the CCWG has to made.
> 
> In the past, we have pushed so much question to the lawyers without actually indicating what we want. It is my hope that we will avoid that at this stage; we should always indicate what we want so layers can advice on how we may go about it (if at all possible).
> 
> That said, I think we need to recognise the implication of what you've said; it implies that a community process will need to be put in place to get the EC's approval and I wonder how long that would take. The other question from that is what the status of the menber would be during that process. I don't know of any organisation that makes its board so dependent in the manner you are proposing.
> 
> Andrew raised a valid concern about possibility of board removing a member that was re-appointed (within the same term). While I believe such scenario would be so extreme and close to impossible, as I have earlier said a way to approach it could be to subject subsequent removal to actual approval of EC. However the Co-Chairs in their wisdom has thrown the question of "how to achieve what we want" to the lawyers which I believe is in order. I do think we should be setting processes that helps the board know the consequences of their actions and not the one that always prevents them from acting.
> 
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> 
> On 8 Apr 2016 10:49 p.m., "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier at intel.com <mailto:mike.s.chartier at intel.com>> wrote:
> RE: Q6
> 
> “concerns have been expressed that there might be issues when the community tries to seat Board members and then the Board removes those board members instantly.”
> 
> I’m not sure that captures the whole concern. Some expressed the desire that the EC consent be real and not perfunctory.
> 
>   <>
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 5:35 PM
> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> 
> Please find attached 2 documents.
> 
> 
> 
> The first is the compilation of the answers provided to lawyers on Thursday April 7th.
> 
> 
> 
> The second is a list of remaining open questions. For some of these questions the CCWG co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed the original proposed replies or added some new replies - these are clearly indicated in the document.
> 
> 
> 
> Co-chairs, rapporteurs and staff have tried to be dutiful in capturing the questions from the list but it is possible some were missed. If you have submitted a question or issue please verify it is included in this version of the document.
> 
> 
> 
> Please remember that the deadline for submitting questions and issues is 23:59 UTC Saturday April 9 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> We are looking forward to continuing the process of addressing these issues and questions at our Monday April 11th meeting at 19:00 UTC.
> 
> 
> 
> Bernard Turcotte
> 
> ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG Co-Chairs
> 
> Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill, Leon Sanchez
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160409/933f7c35/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160409/933f7c35/signature-0001.asc>