Hi, I guess paragraph 23 and 24 of REC2 is what probably created the confusion that the community could go directly to exercise community power to remove a/entire board member(s) without going through IRP by making it look like they are 2 path options to exercise the community power. It's good this was clarified and I expect it will be minor edit to remove paragraph 24 and update paragraph 23 not to reflect as option 1 because that is indeed the only path to take. That said, as you indicated I believe the required threshold for IRP remains 3 and its only that of removal that will reduce to 3 in this context (Paragraph 51). Regards On 13 Feb 2016 21:14, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Bruce,
So in the case of an EC challenge of a Board decision based on consensus GAC advice, the thresholds would remain at three for the IRP and dismissal of the Board and the GAC could not participate as a decision also participant for either?
The only change is that the EC would be required to go to an IRP process first before moving to spill the Board?
Thanks for the clarification.
Best,
Brett
__________
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Feb 13, 2016, at 2:40 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Malcolm,
As I read it, and please, Bruce, correct me if I’m wrong, this only refers to whole Board removal power and not the rest of community powers so it would leave compromise language intact but clarifying the point in Rec 2 to this end.
Best regards,
León
El 13/02/2016, a las 10:17 a.m., Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto: malcolm@linx.net>> escribió:
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2016, at 16:12, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto: malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:
What you are proposing would allow the GAC to participate in that decision
Or have I misunderstood? Was your proposed qualification limited only to qualifying Board removal power, not the other community powers? _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<; https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community