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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sun Feb 14 01:33:09 UTC 2016


Hi,

I guess paragraph 23 and 24 of REC2 is what probably created the confusion
that the community could go directly to exercise community power to remove
a/entire board member(s) without going through IRP by making it look like
they are 2 path options to exercise the community power. It's good this was
clarified and I expect it will be minor edit to remove paragraph 24 and
update paragraph 23 not to reflect as option 1 because that is indeed the
only path to take.

That said, as you indicated I believe the required threshold for IRP
remains 3 and its only that of removal that will reduce to 3 in this
context (Paragraph 51).

Regards
On 13 Feb 2016 21:14, "Schaefer, Brett" <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/>
>
> On Feb 13, 2016, at 2:40 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
> 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>> escribió:
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 13 Feb 2016, at 16:12, Malcolm Hutty <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>
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160214/6e4d0ac9/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list