Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Apr 2016 4:58 p.m., "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
So, they remove the member. The Empowered Community permits the removal. The community (whichever way the member is appointed) re-appoints, the Board removes again, and so on.
SO: while there could be a first instance, I don't think there would "be and so on" as I think a board spill may be the next option if the board remove the same member again (although we may argue that the spill requirement may not be achieve if this is a SO/AC appointed member). One way to address the concern could be to secure any board member that was initially removed by board but re-appointed from being removed by board again (but can be removed by the appointing SO/AC alone). Something similar to the following: "A board member removed by the board and re-appointed within the same term can only be removed again with the approval of the appointing SO/AC" I assume that of nomcom does not pose such concern.
This could be short-circuited by simply making the required Empowered Community action to be a real one, so that if the EC doesn't agree with the Board's decision it can say, "No."
SO: That IMO seem to limit the board so much and could make the board incapacitated; the process to getting the community's approval/agreement is not just one click hence I have strong reservation about following that process.
I don't feel super strongly about this -- you could get the same result another way (like by making it plain that's what's going to happen -- I don't believe anyone likes that many trips to the dentist -- or by just removing the Board). But since the EC is required to act anyway, it seems one might as well use that occasion to allow the power to be used effectively.
SO: I understand it's the designator that is required to act and a section of our proposal did allow just a part of the EC to act on behalf of the entire EC (which is what we did in the case of removal of SO/AC designated board members). So I think such drafting that allows the EC(designator) to automatically approve the removal but that allows ability to challenge the action is much closer to our proposal. Regards
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