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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 03:47:10 UTC 2016

Hi Robin,

I think you missed the point of Bruce. The way I understand it, he is
simply referring to the reduced threshold from 4 to 3 when board's action
on GAC advice that is consistent with the bylaw or article causes a spill
of the board.

A simple theory is that one can wait for a controversial GAC advice that
will not be qualified for an IRP to spill the board since it requires
lesser number and will still achieve the purpose of spilling the board.
This is when things become so political and we may have just provided a
possible means for that.

Will be good to note that this compromise proposal specific to GAC advice
became final just this month(last week?) so I think it may be inaccurate to
say we have been discussing this for months. That said, even before it was
finalised people like my humble self raised early reservation about this
and I even tried writing personal messages to a few people with the hope of
convincing them that this will not be about GAC advice any longer once we
spill the board on grounds that exceeds the scope of an IRP so in such
situation we should avoid lowering the required number of support.

That said, I agree that it may be late to correct this (which IMO is not
substantive) but I guess it's better late than never. I hope that the CCWG
would see this objectively as much as possible, looking at the bigger
picture. I don't know much about the US but with the very little I know, if
anyone tells me Trump could win any form of election, i'd say it's never
possible so let's not see this loop hole as something that may never be

On 17 Feb 2016 03:55, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> 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.
> Robin
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160217/0c35acb8/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list