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

Fri Jul 24 21:12:30 UTC 2015

 Dear All,
Thank you very much for the hard work
I have a legal question to raise
In No. 243 it is said
Qquote
"*243 **It would be preferable for a decision of this sort to be the result
of cross-community consensus. Therefore, a suitably high threshold for the
exercise of this power, [75%] of all the voting power **available within
the CMSM  [insert reference to appropriate section/paragraph] **[1]*
<file:///C:/Users/Arasteh/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/PY1K61PM/2015-07-21-CCWG%20Community%20Power%205.6%20--%20Recalling%20the%20Entire%20ICANN%20Board.docx#_msocom_1>
 *would have to be cast in favor of recall of the entire Board  for the
recall to be effective. Requiring a majority of voting power rather than a
majority of votes cast ensures that non-participation does not lower the
threshold required to remove the Board.   In this instance, abstention and
non-participation have the same impact and effectively count as a vote
against the action."  *
*Unquote *
*The ' last part /phrase of this no. *
*Quote"**In this instance, abstention and non-participation have the same
impact and effectively count as a vote against the action."  *
*Unquote "*
*This is unconstitutional*
* due to the fact that abstention is counted as abstention and NOT AS
AGAINST TO THE MOTION  -Similarly NON VOTING is Non Voting and NOT  COUNTED
AS AGAINST THE MOTION .I do not know who has invented this rule *
*PLS IMMEDIATELY REPLACE THAT AS FOLLOWS*
*WHEN THE NUMBER OF ABSTENTIONS EXCEEDS  HALF OF THE NUMBEROF VOTES CAST (
FOR, AGAINST ABSTENTION) CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER SHALL BE POSTPONED TO
A LATER VOTING AT WHICH TIME ABSTENTION SHALL NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT and
delete the rest*
*Kavouss  *

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

 [1]
<file:///C:/Users/Arasteh/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/PY1K61PM/2015-07-21-CCWG%20Community%20Power%205.6%20--%20Recalling%20the%20Entire%20ICANN%20Board.docx#_msoanchor_1>ACTION
ITEM #2 – WP1 TO ENSURE PROPOSED PROCESS SYNCS WITH REFERENCE MODEL.

2015-07-24 20:00 GMT+02:00 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>:

>  I would like to see the actual text before agreeing that we are good to
> go.
>
> Specifically, if the NomCom identifies their"interim" members before the
> vote, they are identifying candidates who they are prepared to name, but
> who will not be Board members if the recall fails. I suspect that may be
> counter to how they normally treat NomCom candidatures.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 24/07/2015 12:24 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> _should_ was meant to indicate it is not mandatory. We could specify that
> the NomCom, should it have qualified candidates available, put up at least
> two Board members. Let others do the wordsmithing.
>
> Idea being:
> - NomCom is not forced to provide candidates if they do not have any
> - if they have some, they should give at least two, max 8
>
> I am glad Holly responded to Sam's concern.
>
> Are we good to go?
>
> Thomas
>
> ---
> rickert.net
>
>
> Am 23.07.2015 um 23:26 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca >:
>
> How can we do that? At any given time, they may not have an Board names in
> reserve.   Alan
>
> At 23/07/2015 03:50 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>
> 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
>
> PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
>
> Am 23.07.2015 um 20:41 schrieb Greg Shatan <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 >
> 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> 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 > 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 > To:
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz; wp1 at icann.org;
> 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 <%2B44%2020%207645%203523> > Head of Public
> Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog > London Internet Exchange |
> http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ > > 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 >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community
> mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>  _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community
> mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
>  https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
>  https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150724/2a9fcdae/attachment.html>