[CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Sat Feb 20 10:10:24 UTC 2016
Thanks for this.
Your comment to the end looks like a significant expansion of AC influence
compared with today.
Is that your intention?
On Saturday, 20 February 2016, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Hello Becky,
> >> I think the Board's point is that the carve out - and hence the 3
> SO/AC threshold - could apply where an IRP determines that the Board's
> actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws.
> Correct - this was the position I provided to the list over a week ago,
> and was subject to discussion in the CCWG call. The Board remains in
> support of that position.
> This position could apply for any of the SOs or ACs. E.g. if the Board
> followed ALAC advice, and the IRP found this was in contravention of the
> bylaws, than a threshold of 3 SOs and ACs would be sufficient to remove the
> Board, if the Board did not follow the determination of the IRP.
> >> I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board
> could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT
> contravene the Bylaws.
> Correct. There has been significant discussion of this in the past week
> on the Board's mailing list since the latest text was developed for the
> CCWG report. There was a Board Information call a little over 12 hours
> ago that I was not able to attend, and after that call Steve sent his note.
> The prevailing view at the moment is that it should require 4 SOs or ACs
> to remove the Board in situations when the Board is acting within its
> As part of the discussion of whether it was OK to reduce the threshold
> from 4 to 3, in the case when the Board accepted GAC advice that is within
> the bylaws, the Board has also started to wonder whether the carve out idea
> for one of the advisory committees is really appropriate in a
> multi-stakeholder model.
> This has opened up a discussion amongst Board members on whether we should
> really be aiming to treat the advice from all advisory committees in a
> similar way. e.g. have the same threshold for rejecting the advice from
> an advisory committee, and have the same procedure for meeting with an
> advisory committee when the advice is rejected. Any advice from an
> advisory committee requesting that the Board take action should be within
> the scope of ICANN's mission, and within the scope of the advisory
> committee's role as defined in the bylaws.
> Bruce Tonkin
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
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...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community