Dear All, Thank you very much for the hard work I have a legal question to raise In No. 243 it is said Qquote "*243 **It would be preferable for a decision of this sort to be the result of cross-community consensus. Therefore, a suitably high threshold for the exercise of this power, [75%] of all the voting power **available within the CMSM [insert reference to appropriate section/paragraph] **[1]* <file:///C:/Users/Arasteh/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/PY1K61PM/2015-07-21-CCWG%20Community%20Power%205.6%20--%20Recalling%20the%20Entire%20ICANN%20Board.docx#_msocom_1> *would have to be cast in favor of recall of the entire Board for the recall to be effective. Requiring a majority of voting power rather than a majority of votes cast ensures that non-participation does not lower the threshold required to remove the Board. In this instance, abstention and non-participation have the same impact and effectively count as a vote against the action." * *Unquote * *The ' last part /phrase of this no. * *Quote"**In this instance, abstention and non-participation have the same impact and effectively count as a vote against the action." * *Unquote "* *This is unconstitutional* * due to the fact that abstention is counted as abstention and NOT AS AGAINST TO THE MOTION -Similarly NON VOTING is Non Voting and NOT COUNTED AS AGAINST THE MOTION .I do not know who has invented this rule * *PLS IMMEDIATELY REPLACE THAT AS FOLLOWS* *WHEN THE NUMBER OF ABSTENTIONS EXCEEDS HALF OF THE NUMBEROF VOTES CAST ( FOR, AGAINST ABSTENTION) CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER SHALL BE POSTPONED TO A LATER VOTING AT WHICH TIME ABSTENTION SHALL NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT and delete the rest* *Kavouss * ------------------------------ [1] <file:///C:/Users/Arasteh/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/PY1K61PM/2015-07-21-CCWG%20Community%20Power%205.6%20--%20Recalling%20the%20Entire%20ICANN%20Board.docx#_msoanchor_1>ACTION ITEM #2 – WP1 TO ENSURE PROPOSED PROCESS SYNCS WITH REFERENCE MODEL. 2015-07-24 20:00 GMT+02:00 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
I would like to see the actual text before agreeing that we are good to go.
Specifically, if the NomCom identifies their"interim" members before the vote, they are identifying candidates who they are prepared to name, but who will not be Board members if the recall fails. I suspect that may be counter to how they normally treat NomCom candidatures.
Alan
At 24/07/2015 12:24 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Hi Alan,
_should_ was meant to indicate it is not mandatory. We could specify that the NomCom, should it have qualified candidates available, put up at least two Board members. Let others do the wordsmithing.
Idea being: - NomCom is not forced to provide candidates if they do not have any - if they have some, they should give at least two, max 8
I am glad Holly responded to Sam's concern.
Are we good to go?
Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 23.07.2015 um 23:26 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca >:
How can we do that? At any given time, they may not have an Board names in reserve. Alan
At 23/07/2015 03:50 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
I suggest we say NomCom shall not put up less than two.
That should give enough flexibility to cover all wishes that were brought forward.
Thomas
======== rickert.net
PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
Am 23.07.2015 um 20:41 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >:
I think this point has moved on a bit, based on the call earlier today. The NomCom will not be putting up alternates. I believe where we are now is that the NomCom will (in the event of a spill) put up at least two and possibly up to eight interim directors at that time. I'm not sure but they may have the option of not putting up directors at all, but I think that did not come out on top in the call.
NomCom gets more good candidates than they nominate, so there is a pool from which to draw on, should the time ever come.
I think this is right or close to it, but the next draft should clear this up.
Greg
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote: I agree with this as well, although I thought there was clear direction on this subject in Paris. Regards Sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Jul 2015 7:23 pm, "Cherine Chalaby" < cherine.chalaby@icann.org> wrote: I agree. It does not make sense to ask NomCom to nominate alternates. Cherine
On 23 Jul 2015, at 15:23, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com > wrote: I agree with not asking the NomCom to put up alternates. Spilling the Board should be so exceptional and a smaller exe board should be able to then launch a process, which could result in both elections and in appointments. M
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:13:13 +0100 > From: malcolm@linx.net > To: jordan@internetnz.net.nz; wp1@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board > > > On 23/07/2015 11:18, Jordan Carter wrote: > > See my edits in the files beginning with 2015-07-23. > > One comment: I thought the general view in Paris was that NomCom would > not nominate members of an interim Board. I doubt the practicality of > requiring it to do so. > > That seems to have changed; perhaps I missed some discussion. Or > misperceived the general view. > > Requiring NomCom to put up alternates at the AGM creates the "people > standing in the shadows waiting for a chance" that were mentioned as a > prospect to be avoided, and was accepted as a reason for not requiring > SOs and ACs to nominate alternates with every appointment. > > Moreover, how will NomCom find people willing to commit to drop > everything and become an interim director in the unlikely event of a > Board spill, knowing that it is highly unlikely this will ever come to > pass? > > It is surely much easier to ask someone "Will you agree to serve as a > director now?" than "Will you agree to serve as a director in an > unspecified number of months, should some very unlikely event come to > pass?". > > For these reasons, I think that excusing NomCom from nominating interim > directors is a better choice. > > -- > Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <%2B44%2020%207645%203523> > Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog > London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ > > London Internet Exchange Ltd > 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY > > Company Registered in England No. 3137929 > Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1