Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 9 Apr 2016 2:36 p.m., "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:
>
> “This implies that you(some) don't think board should be able to remove it's members.”
>
> No, it wasn’t to imply that at all.
>
SO: Really? but....
> No one (to my knowledge) objected to the board being able to remove members.
>
SO: ... how will the board be able to remove their members if what you said below earlier is the case:
Mike wrote: "..Some expressed the desire that the EC consent be real and not perfunctory."
This is likened to saying I have access to open a door, yet you have the keys.
> But it is also true that no one (to my knowledge) objected to the EC being required to give consent.
>
SO: Correct
> So the question is what form the consent should take.
>
SO: .. And you said it has to be real and not automatic as initially recommended. Which means technically that board is indeed limited in its members removal
> But as Eberhard has said ¾ is a high threshold, and as Marilyn has pointed out it is (yet another) rare corner case. So it’s nothing to fall on a sword over, and I’m sure we’ll settle it on Monday.
>
SO: Even though this has been said previously, it's good that there is a common understanding now(which is the most important) [1]
Regards
1. I understand that at times it takes certain people to repeat things before some of us can be convinced.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 12:24 AM
> To: Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com>
> Cc: Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard@gmail.com) <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This implies that you(some) don't think board should be able to remove it's members. While I wonder why you have such view, I don't think that its a question/response we should be sending to the lawyers as it is a decision the CCWG has to made.
>
> In the past, we have pushed so much question to the lawyers without actually indicating what we want. It is my hope that we will avoid that at this stage; we should always indicate what we want so layers can advice on how we may go about it (if at all possible).
>
> That said, I think we need to recognise the implication of what you've said; it implies that a community process will need to be put in place to get the EC's approval and I wonder how long that would take. The other question from that is what the status of the menber would be during that process. I don't know of any organisation that makes its board so dependent in the manner you are proposing.
>
> Andrew raised a valid concern about possibility of board removing a member that was re-appointed (within the same term). While I believe such scenario would be so extreme and close to impossible, as I have earlier said a way to approach it could be to subject subsequent removal to actual approval of EC. However the Co-Chairs in their wisdom has thrown the question of "how to achieve what we want" to the lawyers which I believe is in order. I do think we should be setting processes that helps the board know the consequences of their actions and not the one that always prevents them from acting.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 8 Apr 2016 10:49 p.m., "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> RE: Q6
>>
>> “concerns have been expressed that there might be issues when the community tries to seat Board members and then the Board removes those board members instantly.”
>>
>> I’m not sure that captures the whole concern. Some expressed the desire that the EC consent be real and not perfunctory.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
>> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 5:35 PM
>> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached 2 documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> The first is the compilation of the answers provided to lawyers on Thursday April 7th.
>>
>>
>>
>> The second is a list of remaining open questions. For some of these questions the CCWG co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed the original proposed replies or added some new replies - these are clearly indicated in the document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Co-chairs, rapporteurs and staff have tried to be dutiful in capturing the questions from the list but it is possible some were missed. If you have submitted a question or issue please verify it is included in this version of the document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please remember that the deadline for submitting questions and issues is 23:59 UTC Saturday April 9 2016.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are looking forward to continuing the process of addressing these issues and questions at our Monday April 11th meeting at 19:00 UTC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bernard Turcotte
>>
>> ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG Co-Chairs
>>
>> Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill, Leon Sanchez
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community