[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Recommendation 2: Escalation timeframes

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat Jan 23 15:21:16 UTC 2016

Dear All,
This is a critical case and I am supporting the Board's view due to the
fact that the removal of the entire Board which may give rise to some
relative instability SHALL have a higher threshold

2016-01-23 10:44 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>:

> Hello All,
> On Escalation Timeframes (Recommendation 2), the Board has the following
> comment following the second reading:
> The Board reiterates its support for the modifications to the escalation
> timeframes, as well as flexibility within those procedures, so long as the
> timeframes and procedures allow the community to socialize the issues
> appropriately.  The Board is supportive of the proposed times for the steps
> as reflected in the document produced after the second reading.
> The Board is supportive of the language at paragraph 50, as well as the
> removal of paragraph 51 (which were previously paragraphs 62 and 64,
> respectively, as discussed in the Board's comments after the first reading)
> and believe that the removal addresses the concern that the threshold for
> the removal of the entire Board will not fall below four SOs or ACs.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> ICANN Board liaison to the CCWG
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160123/2bd040d8/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list