I'm a little confused as to why people are confused. I think many of the SOs and ACs have been quite clear in how they view things.
Both the RSSAC and SSAC have been quite explicit: we are not keen at all on being expected to vote on ICANN issues, especially since the issues that have been repeatedly raised do not interest us.
The ASO is very similar. It's not at all sure it wants a vote because it doesn't want to get sucked into ICANN politics. But if it impacts numbers or ICANN as an entity it would want to be involved.
The GAC is more complex but still understandable: we are willing to express an opinion on many matters but we feel it is best to avoid a vote if at all possible.
It strikes me that any decision by the internet community to challenge the Board would have to account for each group's perspective.
Put simply, the powers under consideration - getting rid of the Board, vetoing the budget and so on - should require having pretty much the whole internet community on board. And that will not be achieved by trying to force the less political parts of the organization into having to respond.
Trying to tell the RSSAC and SSAC that they will want a vote is entirely the wrong way to get them on board with a solution. What they want to know is that their views will be sought out and taken seriously on matters that are likely to concern them. And that they will be left out of it the rest of the time.
Their fear is that they will have to constantly follow ICANN shenanigans to make sure that a big decision isn't made in their name.
My suggestion based on having watched the internet community work for many years is to create a system that only involves the more technical parts of ICANN once broad agreement has been reached in the rest of the community.
By then, the arguments should have been thrashed out sufficiently and turned into a clear statement of concerns with a proposed solution. It should then be a requirement that the other groups need to express a view before it can move forward.
Once you have made the argument and got those groups on board and agreeing informally with a proposal, then they are far more likely to be willing to vote if indeed a vote is required to make it official. My bet would be that if things got that far, the Board would rather find a compromise than risk having the entire internet community rebuke them.
Using voting as a way to bring matters to a head works for some groups but is the opposite of how others like to work. You can't impose your own culture on others.
Kieren