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

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

  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