Seun,

Of course, given the high bar of community consensus for required to remove a board member, arguments about cause would have to be made during a challenge. But there is no need to limit what those arguments are. Making board members accountable to the community means that the community can remove them for any reason they choose. No one can predict what a board member might do that would legitimately trigger demand for their removal, so it makes no sense to specify criteria in advance.

--MM

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:31 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 Nov 2015 06:23, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > .     Removal of the Board (individual/entire) (pages 21-23)
> >
> > The Board believes that the rationale for the removal of the entire board or an
> > individual Board member must be clearly set out, for example, through
> > reference to a cause for removal that could be set out in a pre-service letter.
>
> This approach was considered and rejected by the CCWG.
>
SO: While reference to cause was not indicated in the CCWG proposal, I believe the motivation/reasons for removal by the appointing SO/AC would have to be indicated one way or the other. Otherwise I don't see the essence of the community forum as its on that basis that the said board will defend him/herself, it is also on that same basis that other SO/AC will evaluate the legitimacy of the removal (even though decision still rest on the appointing SO/AC ).

Regards
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community