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

[Schaefer, Brett]

Bruce,

Thinking this through led me to another question.

What if the Board  decision, based on consensus GAC advice, is not necessarily against the  outside of the scope or mission of ICANN (thus an IRP would not reverse it) but it is opposed by 3 or 4 SOACs? What recourse would they have under your proposal?

Thanks,

Brett
__________


________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>

On Feb 13, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>> wrote:

Bruce,

So in the case of an EC challenge of a Board decision based on consensus GAC advice, the thresholds would remain at three for the IRP and dismissal of the Board and the GAC could not participate as a decision also participant for either?

The only change is that the EC would be required to go to an IRP process first before moving to spill the Board?

Thanks for the clarification.

Best,

Brett

__________


________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/>

On Feb 13, 2016, at 2:40 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>> wrote:

Dear Malcolm,

As I read it, and please, Bruce, correct me if I’m wrong, this only refers to whole Board removal power and not the rest of community powers so it would leave compromise language intact but clarifying the point in Rec 2 to this end.


Best regards,


León

> El 13/02/2016, a las 10:17 a.m., Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net><mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> escribió:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 13 Feb 2016, at 16:12, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net><mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
>>
>> What you are proposing would allow the GAC to participate in that decision
>
> Or have I misunderstood? Was your proposed qualification limited only to qualifying Board removal power, not the other community powers?
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>