<div dir="ltr">Robin, I don't think that is what is being proposed.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>That got added to by including a lower thresholds in that situation, to avoid a unanimity requirement.</div><div><br></div><div>Then it got qualified by noting that if there had been an IRP, etc etc.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>I would not support any such changes.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 17 February 2016 at 15:55, Robin Gross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">The CCWG never discussed, let alone <b><i>agreed</i></b> to narrow the grounds for spilling the board to only those grounds for an IRP as the board suddenly proposes. We cannot have such a significant narrowing of our mechanisms at the hour 23:59. The board should have proposed this curtailment months ago, when the issue could have been fairly considered. But the board can’t slip it in at this impossibly late hour.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Robin</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Feb 16, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Bruce Tonkin <<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div>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. . 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. 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. 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>Regards,<br>Bruce Tonkin<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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><br><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">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><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet</b><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small"><br>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)<br>Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br></div><div style="font-size:small">Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> </div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small"><br></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>