Yes that was the essence of the agreement on Saturday (and echoed in our 2nd proposal); that SO/AC’s have the right to remove their Director, but since
the removal impacts the community as a whole, that due process should be accorded.
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 12:26 PM
To: Jordan Carter
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] individual SO/AC elected Board member removal
We should stick with the SO/AC's procedures, but we may consider specifying that if they have different levels of decision making, this should be done at a higher rather than a lower level.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
IN all of our work on decisions internal to an SO or, we have taken a hands-off view - that the SO or AC itself should use the processes it uses.
If we need to move off that, we should decide that ASAP. And tell the SOs/ACs.
On 19 October 2015 at 15:27, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 19/10/15 15:15, Chris Disspain wrote:
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
75% of what?
(a) All Council members?
(b) Council Members voting
(c) All SO Members?
(d) SO Members casting a vote
At least one of these would appear, in practice, to be unlikely in the extreme to ever be triggered.
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive
InternetNZ
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