ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:27:39 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: julf.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;julf.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=godaddy.com;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=fLrGN12iiJAC5uyt7/SkgVICLSax7HlsojAdI+6zxaw=; b=2rLogHeWRZ3V7i3t8Ufs0PVhSHQk8bEvRCf1otzPv21X5f4N75FFM0EsUPE+0GwFM7EqRH2pOMSq9JEbqmSsJ82AbmoFQFjWgn4v2jCc/6l6SZi/tU4nw+gyp7b5FC+hraYkhdI6FJ/ehAb9q2V81HqAVCvpjRiC+nUmyKhgaLk=
  • In-reply-to: <56CF194E.8090403@julf.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <13201F1D-1CB2-473C-A284-65081474F66C@sanchez.mx> <D2F24A2B.AFB24%jbladel@godaddy.com> <0b8001d16f34$80cbafb0$82630f10$@paulmcgrady.com> <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F89B8A9@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit> <56CF194E.8090403@julf.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
  • Thread-index: AQHRbpDUw+tVhmUzlEWfNM9JNBPbtp855ccAgAGmFgCAARC9AIAAQ3wA//+gQ4A=
  • Thread-topic: [council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration
Sorry to come in on this thread so late, but I think Bruce and Julf have
hit the main points.  The most recent change does make it more difficult
(effectively impossible?) to spill the board in response to their
implementation of GAC advice.  But I agree with those who believe that
this is an edge-case, and other mechanisms (IRP) would be invoked first.

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. 

Thanks‹

J.


On 2/25/16, 9:10 , "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Johan
Helsingius" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of julf@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>Hi, Bruce,
>
>> 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
>
>I think Paul had the concern that removing the board requires
>both a violation of bylaws and a supportive IRP panel ruling.
>
>I agree that the situation is mostly academic, and we are
>spending a lot of time thinking up worst case scenarios while
>the reason the net still works as well as it does is the
>mutual trust of the community, but I think many of us do
>realize that the transition, once entered into, can't be
>undone, and we are also aware of ICANN's less than brilliant
>historical track record in terms of transparency and
>accountability.
>
>       Julf
>
>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>