[council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration

Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
Thu Feb 25 15:59:39 UTC 2016


 
  
  
  
  Hi Julf,

> Also (and looking for Bruce, Keith, Phil or others to confirm this), I
> believe this change only applies to community effort to spill the entire
> board, and would not apply to the mechanisms for recall of a single board
> member.

Could it be used repeatedly to spill the entire board,
one member at a time?
  
  
 - I'm not Bruce, Keith or Phil, but I can confirm that this does not apply to removal of individual Board members.
  
 My principle problem with what happened was not with the specific substantive issue but rather with the way it was raised. Seven and one half hours before a review period on the day before we were to release the Final Report Steve Crocker dropped the post on us that prompted the crisis. That the community did not tell the Board to reserve their comment for the appropriate time (most of which was in the past, some of which was in the future) or manner as envisioned in the Charter was and is a problem for me. Accountability rules are nice but if the Board is allowed by the community to ignore the timelines, rules and procedures of the group in charge of developing future Accountability procedures, why should anyone think the community will not allow the Board to do the same in the future with those procedures?
  
 The actual "battle" was over the text in red, below, which was deleted:
  
  
   The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board's implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects, with the following exception:
  
 Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or
 (1) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question.  
  
 If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds.
  
  
 Best,
  
 Ed

  

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160225/7e02910d/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list