[council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration

[Paul McGrady (Policy)]

Thanks Bruce.  This is very helpful.

Best,
Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 05:09 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration


Hello Paul,

>>  Thanks James.  It seems to me that what this last minute change boils
down to is that the Community will never be able to spill the Board for
acting on unpopular GAC advice (since the GAC will never agree to spill the
Board for acting on its advice).  Any attempt to spill the Board based on
faulty GAC advice will have to be blessed by an IRP Panelist and found to
violate the bylaws.  Is this your understanding too?


Basically if the ccnSO, GNSO, ASO, and ALAC simply don't like the GAC advice
they can spill the Board.   

If the Board is accused of mission creep or violating its bylaws by
following GAC advice, and an IRP panel rules in favour of the complainant,
then any three of ccnSO, GNSO, ASO, and ALAC can remove the Board if the
Board does not follow the binding direction of the IRP panel.

So far most major debates about the Board following GAC advice are usually
about whether the Board is acting outside of its narrow mission.

Note though the process of reaching a decision involves a community forum in
either situation  - and the Board would be actively listening and
participating.   I would think that the Board in general would change its
view if even one SO or AC could provide a strong argument.   Let alone two
or more.     There would also likely be strong coverage in the industry
press etc of any such forum.   So just escalating to the point of having a
community forum - would be a powerful incentive for the Board to reflect on
its decision, and look for ways to find a compromise to maximise support
across the multi-stakeholder community.

Regards
Bruce Tonkin

ICANN Board member