[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Feb 22 05:48:42 UTC 2016
Who can guarantee that even advice agreed by the Board would not be subject to IRP or a non IRP community power application resulting to the removal if the Board with only 3 SO/AC?
One possible option would be to maintain the requirement if Board removal with FOUR SO/AC
That may to some extent remedy the shortcoming?
That remedial action has now been Agreed by several people
I hope you would not object to that.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 21 Feb 2016, at 23:38, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:12:57PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> *Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by
>> others would in fact very rarely happens *
> In that case, of course, the carve-out doesn't take effect anyway. So
> if this is in fact to be so rare, why would anyone argue that it needs
> to be changed? The argument, "Such-and-thus effect is never going to
> happen, so we must set up the procedures around it perfectly," doesn't
> really seem to hang together.
> Best regards,
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community