I honestly think this question has been asked and answered repeatedly by the CCWG.  In a sole designator model, Board recall is the only strong enforcement power, so it must be preserved – and it must actually be exercise-able.  So I strongly defend the principle.  That said, these challenges are almost always going to arise in the context of a questionable exercise of Board authority under the Bylaws.  In that case, the new protections we are putting in place at the Board’s request (the community must first pursue an IRP whenever that is available) should safeguard against unreasonable behavior.  Planning for extraordinary corner cases – a 3 SO/AC combination wanting to recall the Board because it did something permitted under the Bylaws – seems likely to sink the consensus we have carefully crafted.  

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz


From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 3:29 PM
To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net>
Cc: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Proposed Agenda - Call #84 - Tuesday, 16 February @ 06:00 UTC

Beckie
Tks for explanation.
This means that Under those circumstances that ICANN Bylaws and /or Article of Incorporation isnot violated , the Board is Under the mercy of the SO/AC .
That is a very shaky and uncertain situation since just those SO and AC may for any unjustified reasons get together and Spill over the Board
That is what the community wants ?
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-17 20:22 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net>:
+1

Sent from my iDevice; please excuse terseness and typos.

> On 17 Feb 2016, at 17:14, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
>
> My view is that the Board’s position is reasonable where an IRP is available, and unreasonable in those situations – perhaps highly unusual but nonetheless conceivable – where the grounds for recall do not rest on an allegation that it has violated the Bylaws/Articles.