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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 14 10:29:16 UTC 2016

Dear All,
May we understand how 3/4 SO/AC could opppose to the Board's decision taken
on GAC CONSENSUS ADVICE without recoures to IRP ?
Under which course of action and what Community power ( which
Recommendation) that action could be taken

2016-02-14 2:45 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>:

> Bruce,
> Thanks for the clarification. Your three scenarios implied that if the IRP
> failed, the EC could not move to remove the Board. I'm glad that would not
> be the case.
> Getting back to the thresholds, I do not agree that the EC should have to
> act unanimously to exercise any of its powers.
> 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 7:37 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
> Hello Brett,
> >> 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?
> For matters where the Board is operating within the mission and bylaws,
> our view is that the 4 SOs/ACs threshold should apply to recall the whole
> Board.
> From reading the discussion on this list though, I think the more common
> scenario is that the community feels that the Board has stepped outside of
> the scope of its mission in accepting a participial piece of GAC advice.
> Thus I think the IRP would normally be the most common way of dealing with
> such cases.
> Other than that there are a range of other community powers that may apply
> in other circumstances that don’t have such a high threshold. For example
> if the Board accepted GAC advice to spend lots of money in a particular
> area which is within ICANN's mission, but the rest of the community
> objected, then community powers related to budget etc would apply.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 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/20160214/2779c79a/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list