Work Party 1 dealt with the foundational work for all of the community powers. At no point has there been a qualification of a sub-set of the EC exercising decision rights on the removal of nomcom directors. It has always been intended to be the full set.<div><br></div><div>This was discussed at length and reopening the question now, with a transparent intention of amending the proposal in a manner of reducing the influence of a stakeholder after the proposal has been agreed, is not something the CCWG should adopt.</div><div><br></div><div>Jordan <span></span><br><br>On Wednesday, 13 April 2016, Schaefer, Brett <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Co-chairs,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#1f497d">The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal.<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#1f497d">It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority
over their removal. <u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#1f497d">The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft.<u></u><u></u></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I am also opposed procedurally.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that
would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors.
But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Brett <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div></div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<hr align="left" color="#58595b" width="200">
<span style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold">Brett</span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold"></span>
<span style="font-size:x-small;color:#004b8d;font-weight:bold">Schaefer</span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs</span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"></span><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"><br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy</span><br>
<font color="#58595b" size="2">The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002</font><span style="font-size:x-small;color:#58595b"><br>
202-608-6097</span><br>
<font color="#004b8d" size="2"><a style="COLOR:#004b8d;TEXT-DECORATION:none" href="http://heritage.org/" target="_blank">heritage.org</a><br>
<span style="font-size:x-small"></span><span style="font-size:x-small"></span>
<p></p>
</font>
<p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mathieu Weill<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Forwarding also our lawyer’s clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email).
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Best<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Mathieu<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="FR" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">De :</span></b><span lang="FR" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org');" target="_blank">bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org');" target="_blank">mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>De la part de</b> Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord<br>
<b>Envoyé :</b> lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43<br>
<b>À :</b> <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bylaws-coord@icann.org');" target="_blank">bylaws-coord@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Cc :</b> ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','daniel.halloran@icann.org');" target="_blank">daniel.halloran@icann.org</a>); Sidley ICANN CCWG (<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com');" target="_blank">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>); Amy Stathos (<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','amy.stathos@icann.org');" target="_blank">amy.stathos@icann.org</a>)<br>
<b>Objet :</b> [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Dear Bylaws Coordination group:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Rosemary and Holly<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<p>+64-21-442-649 | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br></p></p>