[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the context of GAC advice
egmorris1 at toast.net
Wed Feb 17 12:16:26 UTC 2016
Why was the Board unable to provide a response akin to its current proposal prior to the calls where the compromise proposal was accepted by the CCWG?
Sent from my iPhone
> On 17 Feb 2016, at 11:59, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> Hello Edward,
>>> Now, following weeks of proper consideration where the Board did not raise this concern, they are making a last minute end run around the process attempting to raise the threshold for board spillage in those areas where the issue for spillage involves consensus Board advice that is not within the scope of an IRP.
> Just to be clear the Board proposal is only with respect to the recent proposal from the CCWG to lower the thresholds for Board removal in the case of GAC advice. The position of the CCWG on this matter only became clear a week or so ago. I am not sure how the Board could have given its view much earlier.
> The Board provided a compromise proposal to match the "new" situation where a lower threshold applies. The Board is not raising the threshold that was in the 3rd draft proposal from the CCWG, and continues to support this threshold.
> Bruce Tonkin
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community