[CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7

[Jordan Carter]

Work Party 1 dealt with the foundational work for all of the community
powers. At no point has there been a qualification of a sub-set of the EC
exercising decision rights on the removal of nomcom directors. It has
always been intended to be the full set.

This was discussed at length and reopening the question now, with a
transparent intention of amending the proposal in a manner of reducing the
influence of a stakeholder after the proposal has been agreed, is not
something the CCWG should adopt.

Jordan

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
wrote:

> Co-chairs,
>
>
>
> I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:
>
>
>
>    1. The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a
>    vote in their removal.
>    2. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs
>    with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM
>    directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal.
>    3. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be
>    inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not
>    explicitly included in the CCWG draft.
>
>
>
> I am also opposed procedurally.
>
>
>
> On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even
> though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was
> silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would
> infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had
> to be a rubber stamp.
>
>
>
> Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on
> removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the
> GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are
> told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal
> requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove
> their appointed directors.
>
>
>
> How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for
> the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers
> for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
> and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM
> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of
> Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7
>
>
>
> Forwarding also our lawyer’s clarification on Q29 (please note that the
> clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> *De :* bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org');> [
> mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org');>] *De la
> part de* Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord
> *Envoyé :* lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43
> *À :* bylaws-coord at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bylaws-coord at icann.org');>
> *Cc :* ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','daniel.halloran at icann.org');>); Sidley
> ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com');>); Amy
> Stathos (amy.stathos at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','amy.stathos at icann.org');>)
> *Objet :* [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further
> clarification request for Question 7
>
>
>
> Dear Bylaws Coordination group:
>
>
>
> Please see attached.  All three counsels have signed off on these
> questions from counsel.  Pdf versions to follow.
>
>
>
> Rosemary and Holly
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160413/2952dc15/attachment-0001.html>