[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the context of GAC advice

[Malcolm Hutty]

Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Feb 2016, at 06:51, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> 
> To mitigate the Board's concerns with this new compromise, we suggest that this new lower threshold only applies when BOTH of the following occurs:
> 
> - The Board decides to accept GAC advice, and hence the GAC cannot participate in a decision to remove the Board over this decision
> 
> and 
> 
> - An IRP raised by the community has found that the Board acted inconsistently with its bylaws (which includes the mission).

A community IRP requires an action of the empowered community to bring the challenge to the Board's action before the IRP. 

The current compromise text would, I think, prevent the GAC from participating in a decision to bring that challenge in the case where the action challenged is the Board's implementation of what the GAC has asked for. 

What you are proposing would allow the GAC to participate in that decision, which is an essential step in the process from which you appear to accept the GAC ought to be excluded. This does not seem consistent. 

Malcolm.