[CCWG-ACCT] Proposal for a Community Veto Process on Key Board Decisions via Bylaws Amendment

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> On 04-Feb-15 19:07, Roelof Meijer wrote:
>
> Is the "the ability of the community to recall recalcitrant board members”
> also subject to the condition of the board not being unanimously or in
> super majority against such a recall? If it is, I think it will be useless.
>
>
> I would assume that removing a single board members would require some
> process by those who (s)elected the Board member and could be for any
> reason those (s)electors decided warranted such removal.
>
> It could, for example, be because the Board member never consulted with
> those who (s)elected them.  It could be becasue they weren't doing their
> job.  It could be because they were vile, vicious and vindictive.  I think
> the commuity that (s)elects a Board member should be able to remove them as
> they decide it is needed.  If their idea of what is good for ICANN is
> radically diffferent from the (s)electors then they should be removed.  We
> would need to develop processes within each f the ACSO that (s)elect, and
> would need to develop a nomcom removal process.
>

I fear this could begin to turn board members into being representative of
various SO/AC in terms of their action, which could have negative effect or
better still be abused. Currently i believe board are formerly expected to
act in the interest of the organisation, just that their actions may not be
evident enough to include the community so I think having board members
serve in the interest of the organisation (including the community) may be
helpful. As you have mentioned, the respective process at board
level(bylaw) and SO/AC level (charter?) that ensures there is a broader
community need from collective SO/AC to remove board members needs to be
determined.

In summary, i think board member removal process needs to be difficult by
requiring certain level of consensus across SO/AC on a particular issue
that lacks other option of resolution.

>
> As for removal of the chair or of the entire Board, that is a different
> issue, and I am not sure that I support the removal of the entire board,
> though removal of the chair by a community wide consensus might make sense.
>

+1 on the entire board removal reasoning; i think removal of certain number
of board members that would affect the super majority could be helpful. Not
sure how/why the community would want to remove the chair of the board as i
think that should remain within the jurisdiction of the board members.

Regards

>
> avri
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150205/91a659f0/attachment.html>