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

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Sat Feb 20 10:10:24 UTC 2016


Thanks for this.

Your comment to the end looks like a significant expansion of AC influence
compared with today.

Is that your intention?


On Saturday, 20 February 2016, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>

> Hello Becky,
> >>   I think the Board's point is that the carve out - and hence the 3
> SO/AC threshold - could apply where an IRP determines that the Board's
> actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws.
> Correct - this was the position I provided to the list over a week ago,
> and was subject to discussion in the CCWG call.   The Board remains in
> support of that position.
> This position could apply for any of the SOs or ACs.   E.g. if the Board
> followed ALAC advice, and the IRP found this was in contravention of the
> bylaws, than a threshold of 3 SOs and ACs would be sufficient to remove the
> Board, if the Board did not follow the determination of the IRP.
> >>   I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board
> could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT
> contravene the Bylaws.
> Correct.   There has been significant discussion of this in the past week
> on the Board's mailing list since the latest text was developed for the
> CCWG report.    There was a Board Information call a little over 12 hours
> ago that I was not able to attend, and after that call Steve sent his note.
> The prevailing view at the moment is that it should require 4 SOs or ACs
> to remove the Board in situations when the Board is acting within its
> bylaws.
> As part of the discussion of whether it was OK to reduce the threshold
> from 4 to 3, in the case when the Board accepted GAC advice that is within
> the bylaws, the Board has also started to wonder whether the carve out idea
> for one of the advisory committees is really appropriate in a
> multi-stakeholder model.
> This has opened up a discussion amongst Board members on whether we should
> really be aiming to treat the advice from all advisory committees in a
> similar way.   e.g. have the same threshold for rejecting the advice from
> an advisory committee, and have the same procedure for meeting with an
> advisory committee when the advice is rejected.    Any advice from an
> advisory committee requesting that the Board take action should be within
> the scope of ICANN's mission, and within the scope of the advisory
> committee's role as defined in the bylaws.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160220/692a5058/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list