<div dir="ltr">Dear Beckie<div>Thank you again.</div><div>Allow me to inform you that I am not convinced by your argument nor that of Andrew and his supporters.</div><div>Removal of the Board is a crucial and delicate issue.</div><div>In case of GAC Carve-Out( which was initially proposed by you ) the removal ? spill of the Entire Board should be </div><div>Either 3 SO/AC in favour and only one SO/ AC against together with the suggestion of the ICANN as submitted by Bruce ,</div><div>Or 4 SO/AC in favour and no objection among those who have the rights to exercise the power.</div><div>Otherwise the process would once again is unfavourably treated the GAC due to its exclusion from exercising its community power as results of the Carve-out Concept</div><div>Better to agree with the Board"s initial proposal as submitted by Bruce.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-02-18 7:53 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Andrew<br>
Off List<br>
Thanks for explanation<br>
The aim if comments was to trigger the arguments you have provided<br>
The objectives were thus achieved.<br>
Regards<br>
Kavouss<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> On 17 Feb 2016, at 21:47, Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:29:47PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
>> of Incorporation isnot violated , the Board is Under the mercy of the SO/AC<br>
>> .<br>
>> That is a very shaky and uncertain situation since just those SO and AC may<br>
>> for any unjustified reasons get together and Spill over the Board<br>
>> That is what the community wants ?<br>
><br>
> I keep being surprised by others' surprise about the ability of the<br>
> SOs and ACs to get together and remove the board, given that for some<br>
> time we've been working on a system by which the SOs and ACs can get<br>
> together and spill the board.<br>
><br>
> Some earlier proposals appeared (to some) to be too fragile, because<br>
> they made that removal easy. But now there is the long engagement and<br>
> escalation process that requires a lot of work and, it is to be hoped,<br>
> impresses upon everyone precisely how serious a step they are taking.<br>
><br>
> Ultimately, though, accountability to the community means that the<br>
> community can remove you at any time. It also means that the<br>
> community needs to behave responsibly. We should have confidence that<br>
> the ICANN community -- of which, after all, we are all a part -- will<br>
> indeed behave that way.<br>
><br>
> In case it's useful, by way of comparison: my colleagues on the IAB<br>
> can remove me as chair at any time and for any reason (no explanation,<br>
> fulsome or otherwise, required); and with sufficient nomcom-eligible<br>
> IETF participants I can also be recalled at any time from the IAB.<br>
> The IETF has never exercised this procedure all the way through to the<br>
> end, because by the time things are that serious everyone realises<br>
> that it's time for discussion and compromise. I think the same thing<br>
> will happen here.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> A<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Andrew Sullivan<br>
> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>