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

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Wed Feb 17 03:29:52 UTC 2016


I have absolutely no idea what you are saying.  On the one hand you talk
about GAC advice situations.  On the other, you say "For all other attempts"
-- is that referring to Board spill in non-GAC advice situations.

In any event, I join with Robin in firmly opposing any effort by the Board
to interpose even greater limits on EC powers.  The Board spill has always
been "all the SOs and ACs with no more than one objecting" and there is no
reason to change that for GAC advice (where the GAC has no power) any more
than any other power (where the GAC might have a voice).

This is especially so since, as is most likely , I think, the GAC may  never
even choose to become a voting participant in the EC.  In that situation
even the Board's limited suggestion would have the perverse effect of making
Board responses to GAC advice less capable of being corrected by the
community than other situations -- exactly the opposite result from what is


Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:28 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the context of
GAC advice

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

 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

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list