Dear All, Who can guarantee that even advice agreed by the Board would not be subject to IRP or a non IRP community power application resulting to the removal if the Board with only 3 SO/AC? One possible option would be to maintain the requirement if Board removal with FOUR SO/AC That may to some extent remedy the shortcoming? That remedial action has now been Agreed by several people I hope you would not object to that. Regards Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Feb 2016, at 23:38, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:12:57PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
*Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by others would in fact very rarely happens *
In that case, of course, the carve-out doesn't take effect anyway. So if this is in fact to be so rare, why would anyone argue that it needs to be changed? The argument, "Such-and-thus effect is never going to happen, so we must set up the procedures around it perfectly," doesn't really seem to hang together.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community