[CCWG-ACCT] clarification re carve out

Thomas Rickert thomas at rickert.net
Wed Feb 17 15:55:25 UTC 2016


there seems to be some confusion around the community power to recall the
entire Board and the thresholds required therefore. 


We would like to summarize the current situation as follows:


1.       The compromise and consensus language on what we call the "GAC
carve out" stands.

2.       Concerns were raised and shared by some with respect to a
consequence of this "GAC carve out" in cases, where a Board decision based
on GAC advice is used as the reason for a Board recall. This led to an
agreement during our call, which was confirmed on the list, that clarifying
language is needed to address the concern. 

3.       In the report, which is going to be published in the next few
hours, you will find exactly that. There is no intention to go beyond what
has been suggested/supported by, amongst others, Becky, Ed, Robin, Greg and


You will see the concrete language shortly. I have added Becky's note below
for your reference.


We do hope this helps.








My support for the Board's approach would be limited to cases where the
community seeks to recall the Board because its implementation of GAC Advice
violates the Bylaws or Articles.  In that case, I think that an IRP is the
most appropriate, least disruptive approach.  I can live with the notion
that the community would respect the final determination of an IRP in such
cases - and isn't that what it means for the IRP to be binding?


If the community seeks to dump the Board based on its implementation of GAC
Advice, but where the justification for the use of this community power is
something other than a violation of the Bylaws or Articles, then, in my
view, the lower threshold should apply and there should be no obligation to
file an IRP (which, presumably, would be dismissed on standing grounds).


Bruce - I think we need clarification from you as to the Board's intent.
One could read your proposal as an attempt to limit any use of the spill the
Board power in response to the Board's implementation to GAC Advice to
situations where that implementation amounts to a violation of the
Bylaws/Articles.  This reading would - at least theoretically - materially
narrow the spill the board power.  So I think Brett is right on the
principle.  But I also think the read I've proposed doesn't really undermine
the Board's goal either, inasmuch as I believe that the community will be
rightly reluctant to spill the Board in response to an action/inaction that
is not alleged to violate the Bylaws/Articles.


I suspect there are some details to be worked out on how you resolve a
dispute between the Board and the community on whether a spill the Board
effort is based on an action/inaction that can be reviewed under the IRP,
but I don't think they are insurmountable.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160217/c639bc2c/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list