[CCWG-ACCT] Removal and accountability to community (was Re: CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC)
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Feb 18 07:17:00 UTC 2016
Thank you again.
Allow me to inform you that I am not convinced by your argument nor that of
Andrew and his supporters.
Removal of the Board is a crucial and delicate issue.
In case of GAC Carve-Out( which was initially proposed by you ) the removal
? spill of the Entire Board should be
Either 3 SO/AC in favour and only one SO/ AC against together with the
suggestion of the ICANN as submitted by Bruce ,
Or 4 SO/AC in favour and no objection among those who have the rights to
exercise the power.
Otherwise the process would once again is unfavourably treated the GAC due
to its exclusion from exercising its community power as results of the
Better to agree with the Board"s initial proposal as submitted by Bruce.
2016-02-18 7:53 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> Dear Andrew
> Off List
> Thanks for explanation
> The aim if comments was to trigger the arguments you have provided
> The objectives were thus achieved.
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On 17 Feb 2016, at 21:47, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> > Hi,
> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:29:47PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> >> of Incorporation isnot violated , the Board is Under the mercy of the
> >> .
> >> That is a very shaky and uncertain situation since just those SO and AC
> >> for any unjustified reasons get together and Spill over the Board
> >> That is what the community wants ?
> > I keep being surprised by others' surprise about the ability of the
> > SOs and ACs to get together and remove the board, given that for some
> > time we've been working on a system by which the SOs and ACs can get
> > together and spill the board.
> > Some earlier proposals appeared (to some) to be too fragile, because
> > they made that removal easy. But now there is the long engagement and
> > escalation process that requires a lot of work and, it is to be hoped,
> > impresses upon everyone precisely how serious a step they are taking.
> > Ultimately, though, accountability to the community means that the
> > community can remove you at any time. It also means that the
> > community needs to behave responsibly. We should have confidence that
> > the ICANN community -- of which, after all, we are all a part -- will
> > indeed behave that way.
> > In case it's useful, by way of comparison: my colleagues on the IAB
> > can remove me as chair at any time and for any reason (no explanation,
> > fulsome or otherwise, required); and with sufficient nomcom-eligible
> > IETF participants I can also be recalled at any time from the IAB.
> > The IETF has never exercised this procedure all the way through to the
> > end, because by the time things are that serious everyone realises
> > that it's time for discussion and compromise. I think the same thing
> > will happen here.
> > Best regards,
> > A
> > --
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community