<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
On 9 Apr 2016 2:36 p.m., "Chartier, Mike S" <<a href="mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com">mike.s.chartier@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> “This implies that you(some) don't think board should be able to remove it's members.”<br>
><br>
> No, it wasn’t to imply that at all.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: Really? but....</p>
<p dir="ltr">> No one (to my knowledge) objected to the board being able to remove members.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: ... how will the board be able to remove their members if what you said below earlier is the case:</p>
<p dir="ltr">Mike wrote: "..Some expressed the desire that the EC consent be real and not perfunctory."</p>
<p dir="ltr">This is likened to saying I have access to open a door, yet you have the keys.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> But it is also true that no one (to my knowledge) objected to the EC being required to give consent.<br>
><br>
SO: Correct</p>
<p dir="ltr">> So the question is what form the consent should take. <br>
><br>
SO: .. And you said it has to be real and not automatic as initially recommended. Which means technically that board is indeed limited in its members removal</p>
<p dir="ltr">> But as Eberhard has said ¾ is a high threshold, and as Marilyn has pointed out it is (yet another) rare corner case. So it’s nothing to fall on a sword over, and I’m sure we’ll settle it on Monday.<br>
><br>
SO: Even though this has been said previously, it's good that there is a common understanding now(which is the most important) [1]</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
1. I understand that at times it takes certain people to repeat things before some of us can be convinced.<br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>] <br>
> Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 12:24 AM<br>
> To: Chartier, Mike S <<a href="mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com">mike.s.chartier@intel.com</a>><br>
> Cc: Bernard Turcotte (<a href="mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com">turcotte.bernard@gmail.com</a>) <<a href="mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com">turcotte.bernard@gmail.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> This implies that you(some) don't think board should be able to remove it's members. While I wonder why you have such view, I don't think that its a question/response we should be sending to the lawyers as it is a decision the CCWG has to made.<br>
><br>
> In the past, we have pushed so much question to the lawyers without actually indicating what we want. It is my hope that we will avoid that at this stage; we should always indicate what we want so layers can advice on how we may go about it (if at all possible).<br>
><br>
> That said, I think we need to recognise the implication of what you've said; it implies that a community process will need to be put in place to get the EC's approval and I wonder how long that would take. The other question from that is what the status of the menber would be during that process. I don't know of any organisation that makes its board so dependent in the manner you are proposing.<br>
><br>
> Andrew raised a valid concern about possibility of board removing a member that was re-appointed (within the same term). While I believe such scenario would be so extreme and close to impossible, as I have earlier said a way to approach it could be to subject subsequent removal to actual approval of EC. However the Co-Chairs in their wisdom has thrown the question of "how to achieve what we want" to the lawyers which I believe is in order. I do think we should be setting processes that helps the board know the consequences of their actions and not the one that always prevents them from acting.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
> Sent from my LG G4<br>
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
><br>
> On 8 Apr 2016 10:49 p.m., "Chartier, Mike S" <<a href="mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com">mike.s.chartier@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> RE: Q6<br>
>><br>
>> “concerns have been expressed that there might be issues when the community tries to seat Board members and then the Board removes those board members instantly.”<br>
>><br>
>> I’m not sure that captures the whole concern. Some expressed the desire that the EC consent be real and not perfunctory.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte<br>
>> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 5:35 PM<br>
>> To: Accountability Cross Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> All,<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Please find attached 2 documents.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> The first is the compilation of the answers provided to lawyers on Thursday April 7th.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> The second is a list of remaining open questions. For some of these questions the CCWG co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed the original proposed replies or added some new replies - these are clearly indicated in the document.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Co-chairs, rapporteurs and staff have tried to be dutiful in capturing the questions from the list but it is possible some were missed. If you have submitted a question or issue please verify it is included in this version of the document.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Please remember that the deadline for submitting questions and issues is 23:59 UTC Saturday April 9 2016.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> We are looking forward to continuing the process of addressing these issues and questions at our Monday April 11th meeting at 19:00 UTC.<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Bernard Turcotte<br>
>><br>
>> ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG Co-Chairs<br>
>><br>
>> Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill, Leon Sanchez<br>
>><br>
>><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p>