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

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Wed Feb 17 12:39:41 UTC 2016


Edward

Can I sugges this is an unhelpful line of questioning to start?

I understand you musst be frustrated that the board did not provide a 
response akin to its own proposal prior to the calls where the 
compromise proposal was accepted by the CCWG.

But I feel that inquiring as to motivation or causation is not going to 
get anyone anywhere, and is just going to be distracting.

Would it not be better to take the equivalent effort instead and examine 
the benefits and disbenefits of what they have to say?

And it it doesn't suit you, throw it out. Alternatively, if you can live 
with it, then you've saved time.



On 17/02/16 12:16, Edward Morris wrote:
 > Hi Bruce,
 >
 > Why was the Board unable to provide a response akin to its current 
proposal prior to the calls where the compromise proposal was accepted 
by the CCWG?
 >
 > Thanks,
 >
 > Edward Morris
 >
 > Sent from my iPhone
 >
 >> On 17 Feb 2016, at 11:59, Bruce Tonkin 
<Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
 >>
 >> Hello Edward,
 >>
 >>
 >>>>   Now, following weeks of proper consideration where the Board did 
not raise this concern, they are making a last minute end run around the 
process attempting to raise the threshold for board spillage in those 
areas where the issue for spillage involves consensus Board advice that 
is not within the scope of an IRP.
 >>
 >> Just to be clear the Board proposal is only with respect to the 
recent proposal from the CCWG to lower the thresholds for Board removal 
in the case of GAC advice.   The position of the CCWG on this matter 
only became clear a week or so ago.    I am not sure how the Board could 
have given its view much earlier.
 >>
 >> The Board provided a compromise proposal to match the "new" 
situation where a lower threshold applies.   The Board is not raising 
the threshold that was in the 3rd draft proposal from the CCWG, and 
continues to support this threshold.
 >>
 >>
 >> 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
 >



On 17/02/16 12:16, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Why was the Board unable to provide a response akin to its current proposal prior to the calls where the compromise proposal was accepted by the CCWG?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edward Morris
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 17 Feb 2016, at 11:59, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Edward,
>>
>>
>>>>   Now, following weeks of proper consideration where the Board did not raise this concern, they are making a last minute end run around the process attempting to raise the threshold for board spillage in those areas where the issue for spillage involves consensus Board advice that is not within the scope of an IRP.
>>
>> Just to be clear the Board proposal is only with respect to the recent proposal from the CCWG to lower the thresholds for Board removal in the case of GAC advice.   The position of the CCWG on this matter only became clear a week or so ago.    I am not sure how the Board could have given its view much earlier.
>>
>> The Board provided a compromise proposal to match the "new" situation where a lower threshold applies.   The Board is not raising the threshold that was in the 3rd draft proposal from the CCWG, and continues to support this threshold.
>>
>>
>> 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
>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list