I think we should find out what existing "best practice" is from our counsel and/or experts. Spilling the board is not unknown, and there must be existing solutions.  It's unlikely we'll need to invent one.

Greg

On Monday, March 23, 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Tijani.

" Another issue regarding removing the board is leaving ICANN without board for a relatively long period (time necessary for electing directors selected by the SO/ACs and time for the nomcom to find and select the other members).
In my opinion, ICANN can’t live one day without Board. That’s why I propose that the bylaws be changed so that each entity appointing or selecting the Board members appoint or select 2 persons: a Board director and an alternate one. If it happen (and I hope it will not) that the community remove the Board, the alternates will form the replacement board for the remaining term period of the outgoing board, or for an interim period till the process of selecting/appointing a new board."

One option to consider is the process used with electing some Governments.

By removing the Board - you are  effectively triggering an early election/appointments process - perhaps with a defined timeframe - e.g. triggers a 90 day process to elect/appoint new Board members.

During that period you could have the Board enter into a form of "caretaker" mode.   In that mode - no new policies or new major expenditures (apart from the normal staff salary bill) would be able to be approved.

Regards
Bruce Tonkin

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


--

Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab

Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet

666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621

Direct  212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022

Fax  212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428

gsshatan@lawabel.com

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com

www.lawabel.com