<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>
<div>&#43;1 Thanks Erica.</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>&lt;<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>&gt; on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig &lt;<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>&gt;<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>Paul Rosenzweig &lt;<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>&gt;<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday 17 February 2016 at 12:51 p.m.<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Erika Mann &lt;<a href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com">erika@erikamann.com</a>&gt;<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>Accountability Cross Community &lt;<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the context of GAC advice<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0px;" dir="ltr">Happy to wait.... </p>
<p dir="ltr">--<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
Sent from myMail app for Android</p>
Wednesday, 17 February 2016, 07:50AM -05:00 from Erika Mann &lt;<a href="mailto:erika@erikamann.com">erika@erikamann.com</a>&gt;:<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid #FC2C38; margin:0px 0px 0px 10px; padding:0px 0px 0px 10px;" cite="14557134200000093393">
<div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg"><style type="text/css"></style>
<div><base target="_self" href="https://e-aj.my.com/">
<div id="style_14557134200000093393_BODY">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Edward, dear Paul, dear Co-Chairs - Bruce might not be able to respond and we had no chance in the board yet to review Edward's or other comments. Give us few hours to sort this out and we will respond as quickly as possible.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Erika</div>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="mail-quote-collapse">
<div>On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Dear Co-Chairs<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Now you have a problem.&nbsp; A significant number of us do NOT agree with the Board’s proposed modification of the spill power post-Board acceptance of GAC advice.&nbsp; A number of others
 apparently do agree with this further change from the closed text of Rec 1.&nbsp; It appears as though the supplementary proposal is not complete.&nbsp; I, personally, would take what was in the compromise proposal – the same “all but one objecting SO/AC” standard –
 that is in the current draft (which, I note, has not been released).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d">If you are going to think about changing the draft (as you are free to do), I would respectfully request a full proposal fromteh Board (text and justirifcation); two readings;
 and the development of consensus one-way or the other.&nbsp; We should not adopt the Board’s proposal at all – but if we do, it should not be in this higgledy piggledy haphazard way of having the Board liason communicate an idea that is only clarified in email
 converations.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Where is the redline text?&nbsp; And when is the consideration?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul Rosenzweig<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d">O:
<a value="&#43;12025470660" target="_blank"><span class="js-phone-number">&#43;1 (202) 547-0660</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d">M:
<a value="&#43;12023299650" target="_blank"><span class="js-phone-number">&#43;1 (202) 329-9650</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d">VOIP:
<a value="&#43;12027381739" target="_blank"><span class="js-phone-number">&#43;1 (202) 738-1739</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=19&amp;Itemid=9" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">Link
 to my PGP Key</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=speakers-us2016" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="578" height="87" src="//af.mail.my.com/cgi-bin/readmsg?id=14557134200000093393;0;1&amp;mode=attachment&amp;bs=18635&amp;bl=2851&amp;ct=image%2fpng&amp;cn=image001.png&amp;cte=base64"></span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif"> Edward Morris [mailto:<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aegmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:53 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Schaefer, Brett &lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBrett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community &lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>&gt;</span></p>
<div>
<div><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the context of GAC advice<u></u><u></u></div>
</div>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><u></u>&nbsp;<u></u></p>
<div>
<p>Brett, it appears to me that you are correct. The switch from the membership model left us dependent upon spilling the Board, or parts of it, as the ultimate community power. 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.&nbsp;<br>
<br>
I note Becky Burr's comments on this issue:<br>
<br>
<br>
'If the community seeks to dump the Board based on its implementation of GAC Advice, but where the justification for the use of this community power is something other than a violation of the Bylaws or Articles, then, in my view, the lower threshold should
 apply and there should be no obligation to file an IRP (which, presumably, would be dismissed on standing grounds).'<br>
<br>
Many members of the CCWG, including myself, have indicated agreement with Becky's view.<br>
<br>
Can somebody point to me where this limitation on community power has been proposed, discussed and agreed by the community? Can someone show me where the two readings have been held on this issue?<br>
<br>
If not then this is a process violation and I will be forced to ask the NCSG policy committee to file a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. I don't believe the community has or will agree to this limitation of the GAC carve out if given a chance to
 examine it and weigh in on<br>
the matter. It sorrows me that the Board is pushing this last minute change that threatens the ongoing status of our fine Proposal. Of course, given the timing this proposal could and should placed in the Supplemental as a Minority Statement, nothing more,<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Ed<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">On 17 Feb 2016, at 02:49, Schaefer, Brett &lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBrett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Well, this is clear and it is what I was concerned about.<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Essentially, the Board is insisting in a 4 SOAC threshold for spilling the Board in all circumstances except when it is defying an IRP ruling against a decision based on consensus GAC advice.&nbsp; It is a significant change making it
 more difficult for the EC to exercise its ultimate enforcement power.<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Moreover, it seems likely that, if the GAC decides not to participate in the EC as a full decisions like participant, and the thresholds are adjusted, the Board would insist on a unanimous 4 SOAC threshold to spill the Board.<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Am I wrong?<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">________________________________<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Brett Schaefer<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">The Heritage Foundation<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><a>214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE</a><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><a>Washington, DC 20002</a><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><a target="_blank">202-608-6097</a><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><a href="http://heritage.org/" target="_blank">heritage.org</a>&lt;<a href="http://heritage.org/" target="_blank">http://heritage.org/</a>&gt;<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Begin forwarded message:<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">From: Bruce Tonkin &lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>&gt;&gt;<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Date: February 16, 2016 at 8:28:04 PM EST<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">To: Accountability Cross Community &lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>&gt;&gt;<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the context of GAC advice<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Hello All,<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">To reiterate the Board's position in the case of the carve out compromise involving GAC advice, the Board can agree to reducing the threshold for Board removal to three SOs or ACs, with no more than one objecting, when there was
 an IRP finding against the Board regarding the acceptance of GAC advice.<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">For all other attempts to remove the full ICANN Board, the Board does not support lowering the threshold below four SOs or ACs, with no more than one objecting. . The power to spill the Board would remain available as contemplated
 within the CCWG's third draft proposal.<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">For the avoidance of doubt, if the Board accepts GAC advice within the limitations of ICANN's mission and bylaws, an IRP panel confirms that is the case, and the community simply dislikes the GAC advice - then the threshold of 4
 SOs and ACs continues to apply. If the GAC is excluded from participating then this would mean that the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC would need to agree that the Board should be removed.<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Our view is that past cases relating to disagreement on GAC advice have been focussed on concerns that ICANN is exceeding its mission or is not following its processes. The IRP is the most appropriate vehicle to resolve disputes
 in this area. In general the Board consults widely with the whole community before accepting the advice from any one part of the community. We think a situation where the community broadly disagrees with an action the Board has taken that is within the mission
 and bylaws is likely to be extremely rare, and the threshold of 4 SOs and ACs is still appropriate in that scenario if the community simply dislikes the Board's decision.<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Regards,<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:black"><a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E" target="_blank"><span style="color:black">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community&lt;https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community&gt;</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
Sent from my iPhone<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On 17 Feb 2016, at 03:43, Schaefer, Brett &lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBrett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p>Jordan,<br>
<br>
The way I read it, the Board is insisting on a 4 SOAC threshold for spilling the Board in all circumstances except when it is specifically defying an IRP ruling against a decision based on consensus GAC advice.<br>
<br>
In other words, if the community wants to spill the Board based on its implementation of GAC Advice, but where the justification for the use of this community power is something other than a violation of the Bylaws or Articles, then the Board says that the
 4 SOAC threshold should apply rather than the 3 SOAC threshold currently proposed under the GAC carve out.&nbsp; If this read is wrong, please let me know how.<br>
<br>
This may be acceptable to the CCWG, but let's not pretend that it is some minor tweak. As Becky noted, this would materially narrow the spill the Board power by making it harder to exercise.<br>
<br>
I agree that this situation should rarely arise. The community is populated by serious people and the Board should not fear that these powers will be exercised lightly. But they also need to be reasonably available if necessary. That is why we resisted setting
 the thresholds at levels requiring unanimous support in the first place. In my opinion, the Board has not offered a compelling reason for their proposed change.<br>
<br>
If the Board is needs some assurance, then Becky's narrower interpretation should be sufficient.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Brett<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
Brett Schaefer<br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy<br>
The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002<br>
<a value="&#43;12026086097" target="_blank">202-608-6097</a><br>
<a href="http://heritage.org" target="_blank">heritage.org</a>&lt;<a href="http://heritage.org/" target="_blank">http://heritage.org/</a>&gt;<br>
<br>
On Feb 16, 2016, at 10:02 PM, Jordan Carter &lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>&gt;&gt;
 wrote:<br>
<br>
Robin, I don't think that is what is being proposed.<br>
<br>
All that is being discussed is in relation to the GAC carveout, where we had earlier agreed that where there was a challenge to the Board's implementation of GAC advice, GAC couldn't also be a decisional participant in any move to recall the Board.<br>
<br>
That got added to by including a lower thresholds in that situation, to avoid a unanimity requirement.<br>
<br>
Then it got qualified by noting that if there had been an IRP, etc etc.<br>
<br>
But what is not being proposed, as I understand it, is any change to the general power to recall the ICANN Board or the thresholds to operate it.<br>
<br>
I would not support any such changes.<br>
<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
Jordan<br>
<br>
<br>
On 17 February 2016 at 15:55, Robin Gross &lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3arobin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3arobin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">mailto:robin@ipjustice.org</a>&gt;&gt;
 wrote:<br>
The CCWG never discussed, let alone agreed to narrow the grounds for spilling the board to only those grounds for an IRP as the board suddenly proposes.&nbsp; We cannot have such a significant narrowing of our mechanisms at the hour 23:59.&nbsp; The board should have
 proposed this curtailment months ago, when the issue could have been fairly considered.&nbsp; But the board can’t slip it in at this impossibly late hour.<br>
<br>
Robin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Feb 16, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Bruce Tonkin &lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>&gt;&gt;
 wrote:<br>
<br>
Hello All,<br>
<br>
To reiterate the Board's position in the case of the carve out compromise involving GAC advice, the Board can agree to reducing the threshold for Board removal to three SOs or ACs, with no more than one objecting, when there was an IRP finding against the Board
 regarding the acceptance of GAC advice.<br>
<br>
For all other attempts to remove the full ICANN Board, the Board does not support lowering the threshold below four SOs or ACs, with no more than one objecting. &nbsp;.&nbsp; The power to spill the Board would remain available as contemplated within the CCWG's third
 draft proposal.<br>
<br>
For the avoidance of doubt, if the Board accepts GAC advice within the limitations of ICANN's mission and bylaws, an IRP panel confirms that is the case, and the community simply dislikes the GAC advice - then the threshold of 4 SOs and ACs continues to apply.
 &nbsp;&nbsp;If the GAC is excluded from participating then this would mean that the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC would need to agree that the Board should be removed.<br>
<br>
Our view is that past cases relating to disagreement on GAC advice have been focussed on concerns that ICANN is exceeding its mission or is not following its processes. &nbsp;&nbsp;The IRP is the most appropriate vehicle to resolve disputes in this area. &nbsp;&nbsp;In general
 the Board consults widely with the whole community before accepting the advice from any one part of the community. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;We think a situation where the community broadly disagrees with an action the Board has taken that is within the mission and bylaws is likely
 to be extremely rare, and the threshold of 4 SOs and ACs is still appropriate in that scenario if the community simply dislikes the Board's decision.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3chttps:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3e" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community&lt;https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community&gt;</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3chttps:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3e" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community&lt;https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community&gt;</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive<br>
InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet<br>
<br>
<a value="&#43;6444952118" target="_blank"><span class="js-phone-number">&#43;64-4-495-2118</span></a> (office) |
<a value="&#43;6421442649" target="_blank"><span class="js-phone-number">&#43;64-21-442-649</span></a> (mob)<br>
Email: <a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">
jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>&gt;<br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a>&lt;<a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">http://www.internetnz.nz</a>&gt;<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>&lt;<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<base target="_self" href="https://e-aj.my.com/"></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>