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

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think "effectively impossible" goes too far. But it would impinge on the 
timeliness, depending on how long the required predecsssor IRP took (and my 
impression is that some wind on for a very long time).

But yes, as I observed in my long analytical post the other day, if a 
significant part of the community was aggrieved by a Board decision to 
implement GAC advice it still has the 4a and 4b avenues to removing individual 
Board members, and there is no restriction on doing so in a collective fashion 
within a short and contemporaneous timespan. 

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC
 
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 10:28 AM
To: Johan Helsingius; Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [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
>
>



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4537/11690 - Release Date: 02/24/16