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

Bruce Tonkin Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
Wed Feb 17 01:28:04 UTC 2016

Hello All,

To reiterate the Board's position in the case of the carve out compromise involving GAC advice, the Board can agree to reducing the threshold for Board removal to three SOs or ACs, with no more than one objecting, when there was an IRP finding against the Board regarding the acceptance of GAC advice. 

 For all other attempts to remove the full ICANN Board, the Board does not support lowering the threshold below four SOs or ACs, with no more than one objecting.  .  The power to spill the Board would remain available as contemplated within the CCWG's third draft proposal.

For the avoidance of doubt, if the Board accepts GAC advice within the limitations of ICANN's mission and bylaws, an IRP panel confirms that is the case, and the community simply dislikes the GAC advice - then the threshold of 4 SOs and ACs continues to apply.   If the GAC is excluded from participating then this would mean that the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC would need to agree that the Board should be removed.

Our view is that past cases relating to disagreement on GAC advice have been focussed on concerns that ICANN is exceeding its mission or is not following its processes.   The IRP is the most appropriate vehicle to resolve disputes in this area.   In general the Board consults widely with the whole community before accepting the advice from any one part of the community.    We think a situation where the community broadly disagrees with an action the Board has taken that is within the mission and bylaws is likely to be extremely rare, and the threshold of 4 SOs and ACs is still appropriate in that scenario if the community simply dislikes the Board's decision.

Bruce Tonkin

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list