[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 4:58 p.m., "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>
> So, they remove the member.  The Empowered
> Community permits the removal.  The community (whichever way the
> member is appointed) re-appoints, the Board removes again, and so on.
>

SO: while there could be a first instance, I don't think there would "be
and so on" as I think a board spill may be the next option if the board
remove the same member again (although we may argue that the spill
requirement may not be achieve if this is a SO/AC appointed member). One
way to address the concern could be to secure any board member that was
initially removed by board but re-appointed from being removed by board
again (but can be removed by the appointing SO/AC alone). Something similar
to the following:

"A board member removed by the board and re-appointed within the same term
can only be removed again with the approval of the appointing SO/AC" I
assume that of nomcom does not pose such concern.

> This could be short-circuited by simply making the required Empowered
> Community action to be a real one, so that if the EC doesn't agree
> with the Board's decision it can say, "No."
>
SO: That IMO seem to limit the board so much and could make the board
incapacitated; the process to getting the community's approval/agreement is
not just one click hence I have strong reservation about following that
process.

> I don't feel super strongly about this -- you could get the same
> result another way (like by making it plain that's what's going to
> happen -- I don't believe anyone likes that many trips to the dentist
> -- or by just removing the Board).  But since the EC is required to
> act anyway, it seems one might as well use that occasion to allow the
> power to be used effectively.
>
SO: I understand it's the designator that is required to act and a section
of our proposal did allow just a part of the EC to act on behalf of the
entire EC (which is what we did in the case of removal of SO/AC designated
board members). So I think such drafting that allows the EC(designator) to
automatically approve the removal but that allows ability to challenge the
action is much closer to our proposal.

Regards
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
>
> --
> 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/fe727c19/attachment.html>