Dear All, This is a critical case and I am supporting the Board's view due to the fact that the removal of the entire Board which may give rise to some relative instability SHALL have a higher threshold Regards Kavouss 2016-01-23 10:44 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>:
Hello All,
On Escalation Timeframes (Recommendation 2), the Board has the following comment following the second reading:
The Board reiterates its support for the modifications to the escalation timeframes, as well as flexibility within those procedures, so long as the timeframes and procedures allow the community to socialize the issues appropriately. The Board is supportive of the proposed times for the steps as reflected in the document produced after the second reading.
The Board is supportive of the language at paragraph 50, as well as the removal of paragraph 51 (which were previously paragraphs 62 and 64, respectively, as discussed in the Board's comments after the first reading) and believe that the removal addresses the concern that the threshold for the removal of the entire Board will not fall below four SOs or ACs.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board liaison to the CCWG _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community