[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft Bylaws

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Apr 2016 14:48, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>
>     Q6
>
> The proposal for the community just to endorse whatever the board
> decides here strikes me as potentially risky.  Supposed the community
> replaces a recalled board member with a new one that is less
> accommodating of a prevailing majority of the Board.  The Board would
> be able to remove that new director with a 75% majority.  If the EC
> does not have the ability to reject the Board's decision to remove,
> then there could be a procedural deadlock that could only be
> ameliorated by a complete replacement of the Board.  That seems
> undesirable.
>
SO: The way I understand it is that the EC powers is applicable on board
action or inaction hence is not restricted in the manner you've described
above. I think we all should agree first that board should indeed be able
to remove their colleague if they do wish and if the requirements meet. The
question then is whether the community can challenge that action of board
and based on my understanding I believe the SO/AC could just re-appoint
their removed member OR in the case of a nomcom appointee, the community
could initiate a board spill process unless board re-admit the board
member(s) removed.

My understanding of question 6 response is that it attempts to ensure board
is indeed(and rightly) able to remove their members without the need for a
formal community approval process. However the EC can still challenge that
using one of its powers which is the designator power(power to appoint and
remove one or all the directors).

I am not sure there is any deadlock that such act will pose. Nevertheless,
I am open to be convinced otherwise.

>     Q17
>
> I believe the requested addition is overspecification.  It will simply
> yield disputes about whether a given recommendation is limited in the
> relevant way.
>
>     Q25
>
> The document says
>
>     Initially, “solely” was added to tie the Petition Notice to the
>     GAC Consensus Board Resolution. For example, the ICANN Budget is
>     an amalgamation of many different inputs. If a particular
>     expenditure is tangentially related to GAC advice, then the GAC
>     should not be removed from voting on that petition.
>
> I don't understand this argument.  There are two possibilities: either
> the expenditure is solely related to GAC advice (in which case,
> whether it's "tangential" is irrelevant) or it is not.  If it is not,
> then the GAC exclusion is not entailed.  If it is solely related to
> GAC advice, then I don't get the claim above that the GAC should not
> be excluded -- that's the whole point of the "carve out".
>

SO: I think your response is somewhat inline with that of the Co-Chairs and
I also agree with the rationale.

Regards

> Best regards,
>
> A
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:30:14PM -0400, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed and proposed answers to all
> > questions some based on the results of the Tuesday April 5th meeting of
the
> > CCWG-Accountability.
> >
> > These are attached in preparation for the Thursday April 7th meeting of
the
> > CCWG-Accountability on this topic.
> >
> > The CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs Mathieu, Thomas and Leon
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160407/ae7127b6/attachment.html>