Hi all Sorry to be really brief but: On 30 July 2015 at 17:41, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the share Jordan. Could you kindly confirm if any of the following is not correct:
- The community forum will allow for any member of SO/AC to participate and
not selected few
Correct - as explained in 5A
- That the SO/AC intending to remove its board member would not only use the community forum as announcement formality but rather state convincing rationale to the community
Correct- as explained in 5A. It's a requirement for dialogue and the chance for the person who risks removal to have a say. Details to be developed in the implementation process.
- That the community forum could serve as an opportunity to convince the petitioning SO/AC to desist from(or encourage) proceeding with the removal
That's one thing that could happen. At the very least it adds some community visibility of the considerations involved.
- That the community forum will be held in a most efficient manner; for instance, it would make no economic sense to have multiple community forums in a year as a result of varying times of petition from the SO/AC (although I read that community forum will hold during the 3rd ICANN meeting but sections as quoted below creates the confusion:
"Where such a call to remove a director meets the required threshold is announced, within fifteen days a meeting of the ICANN community forum.... will be convened"
It isn't envisioned as an in-person meeting. So the economic consequences are minimal...
So how will this workout if a petition is made the February for instance, considering 3rd ICANN meeting is around October.
There would be a discussion online. best Jordan
Regards On 30 Jul 2015 12:51 am, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached are the community powers papers combined into one document, and benefiting from the latest legal review and updates following our last call. This is for discussion in our next CCWG call/s.
*I draw your attention in particular to two points:*
** in the *"removing individual ICANN directors"* paper (section 5B.3) there was no limit on the number of times people could seek the removal of a director: if a vote failed, a new petition could happen immediately. *I have suggested there should be a standdown period of six months - if a vote to remove an individual director fails, a new petition could not be lodged.* It doesn't seem fair to allow the community to simply wear down an elected director by attrition like this.
** in *"recall of the ICANN Board" *paper (section 5B.4), there was a weirdness in the *petitioning*. We agreed that two SOs or ACs must petition to trigger this, at least one of which needed to be an SO, but the paper had a legacy oddness that 2/3 of the SOs and ACs would have to sign on to the petition. This was the same threshold as the actual decision. *So I have deleted it.*
The changes to the Budget paper also clarify the separateness of decisions re IANA budget and ICANN budget.
Redline and clean versions attached. Please treat the clean version as the authoritative one. The redline includes all changes other than formatting and minor word changes that don't change substance, as far as I know.
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *