<HTML><BODY><p style='margin-top: 0px;' dir="ltr">All</p>
<p dir="ltr">I sent this email 3 days ago. . There is a glitch somewhere. . Apologies </p>
<p dir="ltr">--<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
Sent from myMail app for Android</p>
Tuesday, 16 February 2016, 10:29PM -05:00 from "Paul Rosenzweig" <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:<br><br><blockquote style='border-left:1px solid #FC2C38; margin:0px 0px 0px 10px; padding:0px 0px 0px 10px;' cite="14558503530000093665">
<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_14558503530000093665_BODY">Bruce<br>
<br>
I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. On the one hand you talk<br>
about GAC advice situations. On the other, you say "For all other attempts"<br>
-- is that referring to Board spill in non-GAC advice situations.<br>
<br>
In any event, I join with Robin in firmly opposing any effort by the Board<br>
to interpose even greater limits on EC powers. The Board spill has always<br>
been "all the SOs and ACs with no more than one objecting" and there is no<br>
reason to change that for GAC advice (where the GAC has no power) any more<br>
than any other power (where the GAC might have a voice).<br>
<br>
This is especially so since, as is most likely , I think, the GAC may never<br>
even choose to become a voting participant in the EC. In that situation<br>
even the Board's limited suggestion would have the perverse effect of making<br>
Board responses to GAC advice less capable of being corrected by the<br>
community than other situations -- exactly the opposite result from what is<br>
intended.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<a href="/compose?To=paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a> <br>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
Link to my PGP Key<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] <br>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:28 PM<br>
To: Accountability Cross Community<br>
<<a href="/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the context of<br>
GAC advice<br>
<br>
Hello All,<br>
<br>
To reiterate the Board's position in the case of the carve out compromise<br>
involving GAC advice, the Board can agree to reducing the threshold for<br>
Board removal to three SOs or ACs, with no more than one objecting, when<br>
there was an IRP finding against the Board regarding the acceptance of GAC<br>
advice. <br>
<br>
For all other attempts to remove the full ICANN Board, the Board does not<br>
support lowering the threshold below four SOs or ACs, with no more than one<br>
objecting. . The power to spill the Board would remain available as<br>
contemplated within the CCWG's third draft proposal.<br>
<br>
For the avoidance of doubt, if the Board accepts GAC advice within the<br>
limitations of ICANN's mission and bylaws, an IRP panel confirms that is the<br>
case, and the community simply dislikes the GAC advice - then the threshold<br>
of 4 SOs and ACs continues to apply. If the GAC is excluded from<br>
participating then this would mean that the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC would<br>
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<br>
focussed on concerns that ICANN is exceeding its mission or is not following<br>
its processes. The IRP is the most appropriate vehicle to resolve disputes<br>
in this area. In general the Board consults widely with the whole<br>
community before accepting the advice from any one part of the community.<br>
We think a situation where the community broadly disagrees with an action<br>
the Board has taken that is within the mission and bylaws is likely to be<br>
extremely rare, and the threshold of 4 SOs and ACs is still appropriate in<br>
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="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">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>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">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>
</div>
<base target="_self" href="https://e-aj.my.com/" />
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></BODY></HTML>