ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

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

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration
  • From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:43:12 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-AU, en-US
  • 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
  • Thread-index: AQHRbpDUw+tVhmUzlEWfNM9JNBPbtp855ccAgAD+cwCAAbYUIP//niQAgAElK+A=
  • Thread-topic: [council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration
Hello Johan,


> 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.

The power to spill the Board with 4 SOs and ACs still remains.    The 
requirement for an IRP panel finding that the board had violated its bylaws in 
the case of GAC advice, was only in the case where only 3 SOs and ACs decides 
to spill the Board.   

As others have pointed out the power to remove individual directors is also 
unchanged.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>