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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Brett
Pls carefully read that
Regards
Hello All,

 From Bruce$

The Board has been following the work of the CCWG and appreciates the
enormous effort over the past weeks, and especially in closing on the last
few outstanding issues.

Since the GAC Advice compromise has been reached this week, we are
concerned over the lower threshold for Board removal reflected in
Recommendation 2, paragraph 51, in the exceptional situation of GAC
advice.  As the Board has previously noted, the threshold of 4 SO/ACs is an
important safeguard to ensure full support across the ICANN community in
the event of an entire Board recall.

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).


This would mitigate our concern of going directly to a board removal
process with a lower threshold.


To outline this further, below are a few scenarios:

1.  GAC provides the Board with a consensus advice.

2.  Board accepts the advice

3.  Community believes the Board acted outside its mission in accepting GAC
advice.

4.  Community raises an IRP.

Scenario 1:

5.  IRP finds that the Board acted outside its mission in acting on the GAC
advice.

6. Board accepts IRP finding and acts in alignment with the IRP decision

7.  Case closed.  The Community cannot exercise its power to remove the
Board using a reduced threshold of three SOs/ACs.


Scenario 2:

5.  IRP finds that the Board acted outside its mission in acting on the GAC
advice.

6. Board does not accept IRP finding and does not act in alignment with the
decision

7. The community can base its power to remove the Board on the failure to
follow the IRP decision, and may do so with a reduced threshold of three
SO/ACs in support and no more than one objection

Scenario 3:

5. IRP finds that the Board did not act outside its mission in accepting
the GAC advice.

6. Case closed.   The Community cannot exercise its power to remove the
Board using a reduced threshold of three SOs/ACs.


Regards,

Bruce Tonkin

ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG
______________________________

2016-02-14 13:07 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>:

>
>
> On 14/02/2016 00:26, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> > Hello Brett,
> >
> >
> >>>  The only change is that the EC would be required to go to an IRP
> process first before moving to spill the Board?
> >
> > That is correct, and only in the case of the GAC-carve out scenario.
>
> Bruce, Leon, Kavouss,
>
> Thank you all for your clarifications.
>
>
> Malcolm.
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>        Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160216/03adda99/attachment.html>