[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 9 Apr 2016 2:36 p.m., "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>
wrote:
>
> “This implies that you(some) don't think board should be able to remove
it's members.”
>
> No, it wasn’t to imply that at all.
>

SO: Really? but....

> No one (to my knowledge) objected to the board being able to remove
members.
>

SO: ... how will the board be able to remove their members if what you said
below earlier is the case:

Mike wrote: "..Some expressed the desire that the EC consent be real and
not perfunctory."

This is likened to saying I have access to open a door, yet you have the
keys.

> But it is also true that no one (to my knowledge) objected to the EC
being required to give consent.
>
SO: Correct

> So the question is what form the consent should take.
>
SO: .. And you said it has to be real and not automatic as initially
recommended. Which means technically that board is indeed limited in its
members removal

> But as Eberhard has said ¾ is a high threshold, and as Marilyn has
pointed out it is (yet another) rare corner case. So it’s nothing to fall
on a sword over, and I’m sure we’ll settle it on Monday.
>
SO: Even though this has been said previously, it's good that there is a
common understanding now(which is the most important) [1]

Regards
1. I understand that at times it takes certain people to repeat things
before some of us can be convinced.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 12:24 AM
> To: Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>
> Cc: Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard at gmail.com) <
turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This implies that you(some) don't think board should be able to remove
it's members. While I wonder why you have such view, I don't think that its
a question/response we should be sending to the lawyers as it is a decision
the CCWG has to made.
>
> In the past, we have pushed so much question to the lawyers without
actually indicating what we want. It is my hope that we will avoid that at
this stage; we should always indicate what we want so layers can advice on
how we may go about it (if at all possible).
>
> That said, I think we need to recognise the implication of what you've
said; it implies that a community process will need to be put in place to
get the EC's approval and I wonder how long that would take. The other
question from that is what the status of the menber would be during that
process. I don't know of any organisation that makes its board so dependent
in the manner you are proposing.
>
> Andrew raised a valid concern about possibility of board removing a
member that was re-appointed (within the same term). While I believe such
scenario would be so extreme and close to impossible, as I have earlier
said a way to approach it could be to subject subsequent removal to actual
approval of EC. However the Co-Chairs in their wisdom has thrown the
question of "how to achieve what we want" to the lawyers which I believe is
in order. I do think we should be setting processes that helps the board
know the consequences of their actions and not the one that always prevents
them from acting.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 8 Apr 2016 10:49 p.m., "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>
wrote:
>>
>> RE: Q6
>>
>> “concerns have been expressed that there might be issues when the
community tries to seat Board members and then the Board removes those
board members instantly.”
>>
>> I’m not sure that captures the whole concern. Some expressed the desire
that the EC consent be real and not perfunctory.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard
Turcotte
>> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 5:35 PM
>> To: Accountability Cross Community <
accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached 2 documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> The first is the compilation of the answers provided to lawyers on
Thursday April 7th.
>>
>>
>>
>> The second is a list of remaining open questions. For some of these
questions the CCWG co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed the original
proposed replies or added some new replies - these are clearly indicated in
the document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Co-chairs, rapporteurs and staff have tried to be dutiful in capturing
the questions from the list but it is possible some were missed. If you
have submitted a question or issue please verify it is included in this
version of the document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please remember that the deadline for submitting questions and issues is
23:59 UTC Saturday April 9 2016.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are looking forward to continuing the process of addressing these
issues and questions at our Monday April 11th meeting at 19:00 UTC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bernard Turcotte
>>
>> ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG Co-Chairs
>>
>> Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill, Leon Sanchez
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160409/cbb52213/attachment.html>