[CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Bruce,
I still believe that the threshold of 4SO/AC as a golden rule must be
maintained in all cases and Under all circumstances.
Moreover I fully agree with the last two paragraphs
Quote




*"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. *
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin"
Unquote
In fact why different Advisory groups be treated differently
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-20 8:32 GMT+01:00 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
> bylaws.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160220/afd927da/attachment.html>