RE: [council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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