I think the independence standards should be fairly easily satisfied unless ICANN has created an independence definition that is more rigorous than required. Also the IRS Regs are disclosure based and one could disclose a smaller number of independents and the rationale. I am aware of no circumstance in which 501c3 status has been put at risk for having for a very short period of time a smaller number of independent directors.

Sent with Good (www.good.com)

I understand that there is need for expediency in seating what we’re referring to as the “interim” board, but I do not support the rush to proscribe who can seat members on the Board if we’re not having the companion conversation of making sure that that selection process is geared towards requiring a sufficient number of “independent” directors – as defined through the United States IRS regs governing not-for-profits. ICANN is obligated to make annual filings with the IRS; in those filings, it must identify the number of “independent” directors on its Board. There is IRS guidance that the Board should not be dominated by those who are not independent. There is IRS guidance that confirms that the IRS reviews whether organizations with 501c3 status have independent directors. While “independent” directors can – and sometimes do - come from the SO/AC appointment process, historically, the NomCom has been the source from which ICANN has met the independence requirement. We should take caution that we are not designing a process that could put ICANN’s 501c3 status at risk, or at minimum, does not operate in line with the governing body guidance given by the IRS.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>
Date: Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 1:15 PM
To: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Cc: "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board

Ok I for one am getting confused I thought the suggestion was up to 2?

I think we need a clear set of options to deliberate on.

My suggestion to those options:

Suggestion: The NomCom may choose to nominate up to 2 directors to the interim board at the same time as the directors from the SO/ACs are nominated.

Reason: I don’t agree that we allow NomCom to appoint a full selection, the interim board should be small and should not be a full complement, that it a matter for the full replacement board, the interim board needs to be knowledgeable, agile and able to respond quickly to change in a time of crisis.

-James Gannon

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:51 PM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: wp1@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board

I suggest we say NomCom shall not put up less than two.

That should give enough flexibility to cover all wishes that were brought forward.

Thomas

========

rickert.net

PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.

Am 23.07.2015 um 20:41 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:

I think this point has moved on a bit, based on the call earlier today. The NomCom will not be putting up alternates. I believe where we are now is that the NomCom will (in the event of a spill) put up at least two and possibly up to eight interim directors at that time. I'm not sure but they may have the option of not putting up directors at all, but I think that did not come out on top in the call.

NomCom gets more good candidates than they nominate, so there is a pool from which to draw on, should the time ever come.

I think this is right or close to it, but the next draft should clear this up.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with this as well, although I thought there was clear direction on this subject in Paris.

Regards

Sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 23 Jul 2015 7:23 pm, "Cherine Chalaby" <cherine.chalaby@icann.org> wrote:

I agree. It does not make sense to ask NomCom to nominate alternates. Cherine

On 23 Jul 2015, at 15:23, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

I agree with not asking the NomCom to put up alternates. Spilling the Board should be so exceptional and a smaller exe board should be able to then launch a process, which could result in both elections and in appointments.

M

> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:13:13 +0100
> From: malcolm@linx.net
> To: jordan@internetnz.net.nz; wp1@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board
>
>
> On 23/07/2015 11:18, Jordan Carter wrote:
> > See my edits in the files beginning with 2015-07-23.
>
> One comment: I thought the general view in Paris was that NomCom would
> not nominate members of an interim Board. I doubt the practicality of
> requiring it to do so.
>
> That seems to have changed; perhaps I missed some discussion. Or
> misperceived the general view.
>
> Requiring NomCom to put up alternates at the AGM creates the "people
> standing in the shadows waiting for a chance" that were mentioned as a
> prospect to be avoided, and was accepted as a reason for not requiring
> SOs and ACs to nominate alternates with every appointment.
>
> Moreover, how will NomCom find people willing to commit to drop
> everything and become an interim director in the unlikely event of a
> Board spill, knowing that it is highly unlikely this will ever come to
> pass?
>
> It is surely much easier to ask someone "Will you agree to serve as a
> director now?" than "Will you agree to serve as a director in an
> unspecified number of months, should some very unlikely event come to
> pass?".
>
> For these reasons, I think that excusing NomCom from nominating interim
> directors is a better choice.
>
> --
> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
> London Internet Exchange Ltd
> 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>
> Company Registered in England No. 3137929
> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
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

_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
WP1@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************