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

Robin Gross robin at ipjustice.org
Wed Feb 17 02:55:16 UTC 2016

The CCWG never discussed, let alone agreed to narrow the grounds for spilling the board to only those grounds for an IRP as the board suddenly proposes.  We cannot have such a significant narrowing of our mechanisms at the hour 23:59.  The board should have proposed this curtailment months ago, when the issue could have been fairly considered.  But the board can’t slip it in at this impossibly late hour.


> On Feb 16, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> 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.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160216/536351fd/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list