[WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board

Tue Jul 28 19:00:38 UTC 2015

I wanted to follow up on the exchange from last week on this issue.  While we are working on accountability issues in this group, one of the areas that we should make sure we are addressing appropriately is the governance structure of the board work at ICANN. ICANN has a very healthy track record of striving for excellence is in the governance structure of our Board.  Board decisions are carefully made, and decisions are published with detailed minutes and rationales supporting each decision.   Conflict of Interest rules are carefully followed and discussed within that record of the meetings.  The Enhancing ICANN Accountability process should not change that.

The ICANN community – well before the 2008 IRS guidelines were issued – focused on having a substantial number of its voting directors as independent.  For more than a decade ICANN’s Nominating Committee has sought to consider independence of directors as part of its consideration in selection.  Annually it has long received briefings from the General Counsel on the issue of independence, as well as ICANN’s practices in identifying conflicts of interest in the Boardroom.   A sample of the presentation accompanying that briefing is attached.  After discussion with the community, ICANN’s conflicts of interest practices were strengthened in 2012.  The community has never accepted that only a minimum standard of governance should be what ICANN strives for, but that we should have excellent standards in this regard.  As we all work to continue on the path to strengthening ICANN’s accountability, it is important that we do not do anything to weaken our governance practices.

If there is ever a time when making sure that independence of a Board member is considered, it is at the crisis point that ICANN would be at if a Board recall ever happened.  At that time, ICANN would need to take affirmative steps to insure that institutional confidence remained in the organization, and it would be very important to consider the legitimacy and stability of the organization, including demonstrating that the Board is populated with a substantial number of directors who are able to act without conflict of interest, or not seen as “insiders” seated under emergency circumstances.

Holding ICANN to a higher governance standard should not be seen as a weakness, but a sign of strength.  It can be seen as a tool to demand higher accountability. This has been part of the Enhancing ICANN Accountability conversation on many fronts.  For example, while the law might allow for removal of a community-appointed director because, as one participant on this list said “we’re just not that into you”, how does that help ensure that ICANN directors perform their duties without concerns of their own self-interest in retaining their position?  Will that demonstrate stability to the global Internet community watching ICANN as a model of multistakeholderism?  That has served as part of the call by some for objective standards to precede removal, so that we can help demonstrate that ICANN is comprised not only of people who take into account the views of those who seated them, but also the broader, global interest that directors are required to serve.   Making sure that we don’t take steps to minimize the independent voices on our Board – even if for just a short time – is another way to help insist that ICANN remains ahead of the curve.

I disagree that imposing a requirement for independence of (at least a substantial number) of the “caretaker” board can be held off to WS2.

From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
Date: Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 3:24 PM
To: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory at sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>, Samantha Eisner <samantha.eisner at icann.org<mailto:samantha.eisner at icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Cc: "wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board

Sam,

Input such as this would be well placed for WS2 when we set out the criteria for interim board member selection, we can ensure that we place such a requirement into the SOACs for interim Director Selection if we feel that we may run into board governance/balance issues even given Holly’s feedback below.

-James

From: Gregory, Holly [mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:24 PM
To: Samantha Eisner; James Gannon; Thomas Rickert; Greg Shatan
Cc: wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board

I think the independence standards should be fairly easily satisfied unless ICANN has created an independence definition that is more rigorous than required.  Also the IRS Regs are disclosure based and one could disclose a smaller number of independents and the rationale. I am aware of no circumstance in which 501c3 status has been put at risk for having for a very short period of time a smaller number of independent directors.

Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>)

________________________________
From:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Samantha Eisner
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 04:15:37 PM
To: James Gannon; Thomas Rickert; Greg Shatan
Cc: wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board
I understand that there is need for expediency in seating what we’re referring to as the “interim” board, but I do not support the rush to proscribe who can seat members on the Board if we’re not having the companion conversation of making sure that that selection process is geared towards requiring a sufficient number of “independent” directors – as defined through the United States IRS regs governing not-for-profits.  ICANN is obligated to make annual filings with the IRS; in those filings, it must identify the number of “independent” directors on its Board.  There is IRS guidance that the Board should not be dominated by those who are not independent.  There is IRS guidance that confirms that the IRS reviews whether organizations with 501c3 status have independent directors.  While “independent” directors can – and sometimes do -  come from the SO/AC appointment process, historically, the NomCom has been the source from which ICANN has met the independence requirement.  We should take caution that we are not designing a process that could put ICANN’s 501c3 status at risk, or at minimum, does not operate in line with the governing body guidance given by the IRS.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
Date: Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 1:15 PM
To: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Cc: "wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board

Ok I for one am getting confused I thought the suggestion was up to 2?

I think we need a clear set of options to deliberate on.

My suggestion to those options:

Suggestion: The NomCom may choose to nominate up to 2 directors to the interim board at the same time as the directors from the SO/ACs are nominated.

Reason: I don’t agree that we allow NomCom to appoint a full selection, the interim board should be small and should not be a full complement, that it a matter for the full replacement board, the interim board needs to be knowledgeable, agile and able to respond quickly to change in a time of crisis.

-James Gannon

From:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:51 PM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board

I suggest we say NomCom shall not put up less than two.

That should give enough flexibility to cover all wishes that were brought forward.

Thomas
========
rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=AwMF-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=q4RppVVWcUeqUiq8_tgb8n4nY6DtKtfjSCNBn7ebkFA&s=72OgBks-0V5CUNLicMEdurybaf55JH_eu3a3EmhP7tI&e=>

PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.

Am 23.07.2015 um 20:41 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>:
I think this point has moved on a bit, based on the call earlier today.  The NomCom will not be putting up alternates.  I believe where we are now is that the NomCom will (in the event of a spill) put up at least two and possibly up to eight interim directors at that time.  I'm not sure but they may have the option of not putting up directors at all, but I think that did not come out on top in the call.

NomCom gets more good candidates than they nominate, so there is a pool from which to draw on, should the time ever come.

I think this is right or close to it, but the next draft should clear this up.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:

I agree with this as well, although I thought there was clear direction on this subject in Paris.

Regards

Sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Jul 2015 7:23 pm, "Cherine Chalaby" <cherine.chalaby at icann.org<mailto:cherine.chalaby at icann.org>> wrote:
I agree. It does not make sense to ask NomCom to nominate alternates.   Cherine
On 23 Jul 2015, at 15:23, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:

I agree with not asking the NomCom to put up alternates. Spilling the Board should be so exceptional and a smaller exe board should be able to then launch a process, which could result in both elections and in appointments.
M
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:13:13 +0100
> From: malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>
> To: jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>; wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board
>
>
> On 23/07/2015 11:18, Jordan Carter wrote:
> > See my edits in the files beginning with 2015-07-23.
>
> One comment: I thought the general view in Paris was that NomCom would
> not nominate members of an interim Board. I doubt the practicality of
> requiring it to do so.
>
> That seems to have changed; perhaps I missed some discussion. Or
> misperceived the general view.
>
> Requiring NomCom to put up alternates at the AGM creates the "people
> standing in the shadows waiting for a chance" that were mentioned as a
> prospect to be avoided, and was accepted as a reason for not requiring
> SOs and ACs to nominate alternates with every appointment.
>
> Moreover, how will NomCom find people willing to commit to drop
> everything and become an interim director in the unlikely event of a
> Board spill, knowing that it is highly unlikely this will ever come to
> pass?
>
> It is surely much easier to ask someone "Will you agree to serve as a
> director now?" than "Will you agree to serve as a director in an
> unspecified number of months, should some very unlikely event come to
> pass?".
>
> For these reasons, I think that excusing NomCom from nominating interim
> directors is a better choice.
>
> --
> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>
> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net_&d=AwMF-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=q4RppVVWcUeqUiq8_tgb8n4nY6DtKtfjSCNBn7ebkFA&s=_J9fyTh0pO0rT2Ii7r2Xl08fv9DPJ3U9bvzrjGqn5-o&e=>
>
> London Internet Exchange Ltd
> 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>
> Company Registered in England No. 3137929
> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMF-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=q4RppVVWcUeqUiq8_tgb8n4nY6DtKtfjSCNBn7ebkFA&s=ptKMyBGlhL4dgFFlMiWnKX_uQRby52Fneez_lKZSL_8&e=>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMF-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=q4RppVVWcUeqUiq8_tgb8n4nY6DtKtfjSCNBn7ebkFA&s=ptKMyBGlhL4dgFFlMiWnKX_uQRby52Fneez_lKZSL_8&e=>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMF-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=q4RppVVWcUeqUiq8_tgb8n4nY6DtKtfjSCNBn7ebkFA&s=ptKMyBGlhL4dgFFlMiWnKX_uQRby52Fneez_lKZSL_8&e=>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMF-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=q4RppVVWcUeqUiq8_tgb8n4nY6DtKtfjSCNBn7ebkFA&s=ptKMyBGlhL4dgFFlMiWnKX_uQRby52Fneez_lKZSL_8&e=>

_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
WP1 at icann.org<mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_wp1&d=AwMF-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=q4RppVVWcUeqUiq8_tgb8n4nY6DtKtfjSCNBn7ebkFA&s=hsLpomIGzCz_xJLcQsGnzoX5X_-VHrnFlOAEaAtJR9M&e=>

****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150728/d0a878c8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Independence-of-Directors-Presentation[1].pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 2193304 bytes
Desc: Independence-of-Directors-Presentation[1].pptx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150728/d0a878c8/Independence-of-Directors-Presentation1-0001.pptx>