2. The fundamental balances within the ICANN structure have to be maintained, whether or not they have been explicitly addressed in the CCWG and CWG drafts. Indeed there are other instances which demand attention in this respect, e.g. SCWG. MM: That is exactly what Brett is saying, it seems to me. Currently, in terms of balances, GAC does not appoint any board members, and ACs and SOs who appoint board members can only remove their own board members. To maintain current balances, we don't allow GAC input on Nomcom appointments. MM: Brett is also correct procedurally, it is entirely inconsistent for people to argue that we cannot give the EC approval power over iCANN board removals because the CCWG did not explicitly address this, and then contend that the CCWG's failure to address the GAC-Nomcom issue means that we have to invent some new arrangement. On 12 Apr 2016, at 14:06, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Co-chairs, I am opposed to this decision on Q29 for several reasons: 1. The GAC does not vote for NOMCOM directors, and should not have a vote in their removal. 2. It is inconsistent with how the CCWG draft treats individual SO/ACs with respect to their appointed directors. The SO/ACs voting on NOMCOM directors should have similar exclusive authority over their removal. 3. The CCWG proposal is silent on this matter, we should not be inserting new powers for the GAC into the bylaws when they are not explicitly included in the CCWG draft. I am also opposed procedurally. On the Board removal of directors discussion, we were told that even though legally the EC had to approve the removals, that the CCWG draft was silent of this, so we could not create a new power for the EC that would infringe on Board powers in the current bylaws. Therefor the approval had to be a rubber stamp. Here, the CCWG proposal is silent on whether the GAC should have a vote on removing NOMCOM directors. The current bylaws specifically do not give the GAC any vote on the approval or removal of NOMCOM directors. But we are told that we must grant them such authority even though there is no legal requirement for it as we know from the power of individual SO/AC to remove their appointed directors. How are these two interpretations consistent? Either we add new powers for the EC on Board decisions to remove directors or we do not add new powers for the GAC on removing NOMCOM directors. Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:54 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 Forwarding also our lawyer's clarification on Q29 (please note that the clarification on Q7 is redundant with the previous email). Best Mathieu De : bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord Envoyé : lundi 11 avril 2016 21:43 À : bylaws-coord@icann.org<mailto:bylaws-coord@icann.org> Cc : ICANN-Adler; Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran@icann.org<mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org>); Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>); Amy Stathos (amy.stathos@icann.org<mailto:amy.stathos@icann.org>) Objet : [bylaws-coord] Requested clarification of Question 29; further clarification request for Question 7 Dear Bylaws Coordination group: Please see attached. All three counsels have signed off on these questions from counsel. Pdf versions to follow. Rosemary and Holly _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community