[CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 02:15:21 UTC 2016

Hi Becky,

I tried parsing what you just said and it seem to be the same thing with
what the board is asking. Leaving aside the word "agreed" in the first
sentence it seem to imply that less than 4 can indeed spill the board if
the IRP found it violates the bylaw. Isn't that what a number of us have
been saying (nevermind that I personally have always being of the opinion
that the "carve out" was not necessary in the first place).

Unless this is just English deficiency on my side, I think there is no
difference between the 2 sentences you indicated. As the second sentence
seem to confirm the first one. Otherwise it may be good to know what other
time the threshold can be 3?

On 20 Feb 2016 1:14 a.m., "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

> The point is that we agreed that the threshold would be 4 where an IRP
> found there was no bylaws violation.  That is not the same as agreeing that
> the only time the threshold would be 3 was if an IRP found a bylaws
> violation.
> *J. Beckwith Burr*
> *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> *Office:* +1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:58 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Jordan Carter <
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>, Accountability Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -
> My apologies if I got it wrong. I tried to make it clear that I was
> recounting how I remembered it. I did see some of those messages, but I did
> not conclude that there was any agreement.
> Alan
> --
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
> On February 19, 2016 6:46:47 PM EST, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
> wrote:
>> I think your construction is not quite right Alan, which is
>> understandable given how much of this takes place at 1 am.
>> First of all, we had stable consensus on the carve out, which included
>> adjusting the threshold, prior to 13 February when the Board issued its
>> request for additional change on this point.
>> Following Bruce’s email, on our call on 16 February *we agreed  that the
>> support of 4 members of the EC would be needed if an IRP found that the
>> Board had not violated the Bylaws*.  That’s quite clear in the
>> transcript.  The transcript does *not* reflect agreement that an IRP
>> must be brought in any or all cases.  Because you cannot bring an IRP where
>> there is no Bylaws violation, that would quite clearly exclude situations
>> where the recall was not based on bylaws violations (however rare and
>> theoretical such case could be).
>> Hours following that call there were some questions and concerns on the
>> list, so I posted the following email:
>> *Brett,*
>> *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.*
>> *Becky*
>> ******************
>> Bruce confirmed that the Board was, indeed, seeking the very broad
>> reading of this proposal.  We tried, through discussions on the list
>> following the call to further accommodate the Board’s concern by clarifying
>> that an IRP must be invoked where available. Those further accommodations
>> are reflected in the draft circulated nearly 48 hours ago.  The Board has
>> indicated it is still unhappy.  And that provides the opportunity to unwind
>> hard-won consensus.  No good deed goes unpunished.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160220/04d70323/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list