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

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Fri Feb 19 02:53:41 UTC 2016

I sent this email 3 days ago. . There is a glitch somewhere. . Apologies 
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 16 February 2016, 10:29PM -05:00 from "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> :

>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
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160219/4cd5f39d/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list