individual SO/AC elected Board member removal
Here’s what the breakout group reached consensus on. A petition for removal would arise in the relevant SO/AC The SO/AC would organise a briefing call to establish whether there is sufficient support within the SO/AC to move to the next step. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond. Sufficient support threshold is simple majority. This call should be open to all to attend but is a discussion of the SO/AC. If there is a simple majority to proceed then the SO/AC would convene a Community Forum for the discussion to proceed. The forum can be light weight and very possibly not face to face. It is open to all. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond. Immediately after the Community Forum, the relevant SO/AC sends every other SO/AC a request for comment on the removal. The other SO/ACs provide written comments. The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC. The relevant SO/AC must publish the results and an explanation if the Director is removed. Cheers, Chris
In case of NomCom-appointed Board Members, would the relevant SO/AC be NomCom or would this mechanism not be available ? Rubens
On Oct 19, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
Here’s what the breakout group reached consensus on.
A petition for removal would arise in the relevant SO/AC
The SO/AC would organise a briefing call to establish whether there is sufficient support within the SO/AC to move to the next step. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond. Sufficient support threshold is simple majority. This call should be open to all to attend but is a discussion of the SO/AC.
If there is a simple majority to proceed then the SO/AC would convene a Community Forum for the discussion to proceed. The forum can be light weight and very possibly not face to face. It is open to all. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond.
Immediately after the Community Forum, the relevant SO/AC sends every other SO/AC a request for comment on the removal.
The other SO/ACs provide written comments.
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
The relevant SO/AC must publish the results and an explanation if the Director is removed.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________ 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
See subject line…elected directors only. Cheers, Chris
On 20 Oct 2015, at 01:24 , Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
In case of NomCom-appointed Board Members, would the relevant SO/AC be NomCom or would this mechanism not be available ?
Rubens
On Oct 19, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
Here’s what the breakout group reached consensus on.
A petition for removal would arise in the relevant SO/AC
The SO/AC would organise a briefing call to establish whether there is sufficient support within the SO/AC to move to the next step. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond. Sufficient support threshold is simple majority. This call should be open to all to attend but is a discussion of the SO/AC.
If there is a simple majority to proceed then the SO/AC would convene a Community Forum for the discussion to proceed. The forum can be light weight and very possibly not face to face. It is open to all. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond.
Immediately after the Community Forum, the relevant SO/AC sends every other SO/AC a request for comment on the removal.
The other SO/ACs provide written comments.
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
The relevant SO/AC must publish the results and an explanation if the Director is removed.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Hello Rubens,
In case of NomCom-appointed Board Members, would the relevant SO/AC be NomCom or would this mechanism not be available
My understanding that in the case of director appointed by the nominating committee, the process for consultation will be the same but the decision making with be different. For a SO/AC appointed director – the relevant SO/AC makes the final decision. For a nominating committee appointed director – a minimum of four SO/ACs must decide to remove that director, and there must be no more than one objection. I would interpret this as typically meaning – ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC would have to agree to remove, and that more than one of GAC, SSAC, or RSSAC object to the removal. In this situation the technical advisory committees such as SSAC and RSSAC would not be required to provide any response if they thought it was not appropriate to do so. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Yes. That's my understanding. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 11:38 AM To: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] individual SO/AC elected Board member removal Hello Rubens,
In case of NomCom-appointed Board Members, would the relevant SO/AC be NomCom or would this mechanism not be available
My understanding that in the case of director appointed by the nominating committee, the process for consultation will be the same but the decision making with be different. For a SO/AC appointed director – the relevant SO/AC makes the final decision. For a nominating committee appointed director – a minimum of four SO/ACs must decide to remove that director, and there must be no more than one objection. I would interpret this as typically meaning – ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC would have to agree to remove, and that more than one of GAC, SSAC, or RSSAC object to the removal. In this situation the technical advisory committees such as SSAC and RSSAC would not be required to provide any response if they thought it was not appropriate to do so. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Bruce, Having read the prior SSAC and RSSAC comments I'm confident that one, or both, may decline to exercise any affirmative act that would require one, or the other, or both, to become actors determining the composition of the body they are constituted to advise in each of their remits. So when four (4) of {ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC} arrive at the point of seeking the removal of a NomCom appointee, the current NomCom selects a replacement. Of course, this only applies to those Board seats appointed by the NomCom, not to the NomCom's appointees to the various SO/AC. Turning to just those NomCom appointees to positions other than the Board of Directors, could you (or anyone) remind me whether these individuals can participate in the (hypothetical) SO/AC processes which lead to the situation of some number, four or more, of the SO/AC, seeking to remove a NomCom appointee? From my time watching the GNSO Council when Avri was the (NomCom appointed) Chair, these NomCom appointed individuals would be able to vote for, or against, the removal of other NomCom appointees, at least to the Board of Directors. Clarification sought, thanks in advance, Eric On 10/19/15 8:37 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Rubens,
In case of NomCom-appointed Board Members, would the relevant SO/AC be NomCom or would this mechanism not be available My understanding that in the case of director appointed by the nominating committee, the process for consultation will be the same but the decision making with be different.
For a SO/AC appointed director – the relevant SO/AC makes the final decision.
For a nominating committee appointed director – a minimum of four SO/ACs must decide to remove that director, and there must be no more than one objection.
I would interpret this as typically meaning – ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC would have to agree to remove, and that more than one of GAC, SSAC, or RSSAC object to the removal. In this situation the technical advisory committees such as SSAC and RSSAC would not be required to provide any response if they thought it was not appropriate to do so.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Chris, As 1 of the questions I already asked, may I know if this process is dependent of whether its a sole designator or multiple designator model considering that by "sole designator" technically implies that "A" designate appoints all board members.? Cheers! On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Here’s what the breakout group reached consensus on.
A petition for removal would arise in the relevant SO/AC
The SO/AC would organise a briefing call to establish whether there is sufficient support within the SO/AC to move to the next step. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond. Sufficient support threshold is simple majority. This call should be open to all to attend but is a discussion of the SO/AC.
If there is a simple majority to proceed then the SO/AC would convene a Community Forum for the discussion to proceed. The forum can be light weight and very possibly not face to face. It is open to all. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond.
Immediately after the Community Forum, the relevant SO/AC sends every other SO/AC a request for comment on the removal.
The other SO/ACs provide written comments.
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
The relevant SO/AC must publish the results and an explanation if the Director is removed.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Not dependent as far as I can see. Cheers, Chris
On 20 Oct 2015, at 01:25 , Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Chris,
As 1 of the questions I already asked, may I know if this process is dependent of whether its a sole designator or multiple designator model considering that by "sole designator" technically implies that "A" designate appoints all board members.?
Cheers!
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: Here’s what the breakout group reached consensus on.
A petition for removal would arise in the relevant SO/AC
The SO/AC would organise a briefing call to establish whether there is sufficient support within the SO/AC to move to the next step. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond. Sufficient support threshold is simple majority. This call should be open to all to attend but is a discussion of the SO/AC.
If there is a simple majority to proceed then the SO/AC would convene a Community Forum for the discussion to proceed. The forum can be light weight and very possibly not face to face. It is open to all. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond.
Immediately after the Community Forum, the relevant SO/AC sends every other SO/AC a request for comment on the removal.
The other SO/ACs provide written comments.
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
The relevant SO/AC must publish the results and an explanation if the Director is removed.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535 <> alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
As I understand from Holly’s comparison, there is no difference in this power between a sole member or sole designator. I’m not aware of any “multiple-designator” proposal. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 10:26 AM To: Chris Disspain Cc: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] individual SO/AC elected Board member removal Hello Chris, As 1 of the questions I already asked, may I know if this process is dependent of whether its a sole designator or multiple designator model considering that by "sole designator" technically implies that "A" designate appoints all board members.? Cheers! On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: Here’s what the breakout group reached consensus on. A petition for removal would arise in the relevant SO/AC The SO/AC would organise a briefing call to establish whether there is sufficient support within the SO/AC to move to the next step. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond. Sufficient support threshold is simple majority. This call should be open to all to attend but is a discussion of the SO/AC. If there is a simple majority to proceed then the SO/AC would convene a Community Forum for the discussion to proceed. The forum can be light weight and very possibly not face to face. It is open to all. A clear reasoning/rationale must be provided and the Director given a chance to respond. Immediately after the Community Forum, the relevant SO/AC sends every other SO/AC a request for comment on the removal. The other SO/ACs provide written comments. The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC. The relevant SO/AC must publish the results and an explanation if the Director is removed. Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
On 19/10/15 15:15, Chris Disspain wrote:
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
75% of what? (a) All Council members? (b) Council Members voting (c) All SO Members? (d) SO Members casting a vote At least one of these would appear, in practice, to be unlikely in the extreme to ever be triggered.
That level of detail was not determined -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 10:27 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] individual SO/AC elected Board member removal On 19/10/15 15:15, Chris Disspain wrote:
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
75% of what? (a) All Council members? (b) Council Members voting (c) All SO Members? (d) SO Members casting a vote At least one of these would appear, in practice, to be unlikely in the extreme to ever be triggered. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Indeed. However, logically it would depend on each SO/ACs operating principles. Cheers, Chris
On 20 Oct 2015, at 01:29 , Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:
That level of detail was not determined
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 10:27 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] individual SO/AC elected Board member removal
On 19/10/15 15:15, Chris Disspain wrote:
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
75% of what?
(a) All Council members? (b) Council Members voting (c) All SO Members? (d) SO Members casting a vote
At least one of these would appear, in practice, to be unlikely in the extreme to ever be triggered.
_______________________________________________ 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
Mike and Chris +1 El 19-10-2015, a las 11:31, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> escribió:
Indeed.
However, logically it would depend on each SO/ACs operating principles.
Cheers,
Chris
On 20 Oct 2015, at 01:29 , Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:
That level of detail was not determined
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 10:27 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] individual SO/AC elected Board member removal
On 19/10/15 15:15, Chris Disspain wrote:
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
75% of what?
(a) All Council members? (b) Council Members voting (c) All SO Members? (d) SO Members casting a vote
At least one of these would appear, in practice, to be unlikely in the extreme to ever be triggered.
_______________________________________________ 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
IN all of our work on decisions internal to an SO or, we have taken a hands-off view - that the SO or AC itself should use the processes it uses. If we need to move off that, we should decide that ASAP. And tell the SOs/ACs. Jordan On 19 October 2015 at 15:27, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 19/10/15 15:15, Chris Disspain wrote:
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
75% of what?
(a) All Council members? (b) Council Members voting (c) All SO Members? (d) SO Members casting a vote
At least one of these would appear, in practice, to be unlikely in the extreme to ever be triggered.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
+1 to this. Subsidarity, please,. Each SO should decide how to remove it own directors, which, potentially could be any of the models I mentioned. It should merely be required to notify ICANN Board in a certain formal way when it has so determined to remove. On 19/10/15 15:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
IN all of our work on decisions internal to an SO or, we have taken a hands-off view - that the SO or AC itself should use the processes it uses.
If we need to move off that, we should decide that ASAP. And tell the SOs/ACs.
Jordan
On 19 October 2015 at 15:27, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 19/10/15 15:15, Chris Disspain wrote:
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
75% of what?
(a) All Council members? (b) Council Members voting (c) All SO Members? (d) SO Members casting a vote
At least one of these would appear, in practice, to be unlikely in the extreme to ever be triggered.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Too much process. Unnecessary voting. Over-involvement of entire community. Kieren On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
+1 to this.
Subsidarity, please,. Each SO should decide how to remove it own directors, which, potentially could be any of the models I mentioned. It should merely be required to notify ICANN Board in a certain formal way when it has so determined to remove.
On 19/10/15 15:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
IN all of our work on decisions internal to an SO or, we have taken a hands-off view - that the SO or AC itself should use the processes it uses.
If we need to move off that, we should decide that ASAP. And tell the SOs/ACs.
Jordan
On 19 October 2015 at 15:27, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 19/10/15 15:15, Chris Disspain wrote:
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director
requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
75% of what?
(a) All Council members? (b) Council Members voting (c) All SO Members? (d) SO Members casting a vote
At least one of these would appear, in practice, to be unlikely in the extreme to ever be triggered.
_______________________________________________ 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
We should stick with the SO/AC's procedures, but we may consider specifying that if they have different levels of decision making, this should be done at a higher rather than a lower level. Greg On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
IN all of our work on decisions internal to an SO or, we have taken a hands-off view - that the SO or AC itself should use the processes it uses.
If we need to move off that, we should decide that ASAP. And tell the SOs/ACs.
Jordan
On 19 October 2015 at 15:27, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 19/10/15 15:15, Chris Disspain wrote:
The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC.
75% of what?
(a) All Council members? (b) Council Members voting (c) All SO Members? (d) SO Members casting a vote
At least one of these would appear, in practice, to be unlikely in the extreme to ever be triggered.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Yes that was the essence of the agreement on Saturday (and echoed in our 2nd proposal); that SO/AC’s have the right to remove their Director, but since the removal impacts the community as a whole, that due process should be accorded. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 12:26 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] individual SO/AC elected Board member removal We should stick with the SO/AC's procedures, but we may consider specifying that if they have different levels of decision making, this should be done at a higher rather than a lower level. Greg On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: IN all of our work on decisions internal to an SO or, we have taken a hands-off view - that the SO or AC itself should use the processes it uses. If we need to move off that, we should decide that ASAP. And tell the SOs/ACs. Jordan On 19 October 2015 at 15:27, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: On 19/10/15 15:15, Chris Disspain wrote: The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC. 75% of what? (a) All Council members? (b) Council Members voting (c) All SO Members? (d) SO Members casting a vote At least one of these would appear, in practice, to be unlikely in the extreme to ever be triggered. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118<tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ 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
So in other matters where it doesn't affect the whole community, an SO doesn't need to follow due process? Hardly. An SO ALWAYS needs to follow due process. It's fundamental.
"The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC." 75% Majority should be lowered to 2/3 majority in my opinion. Ron
"The relevant SO/AC then makes a decision. Removal of the Director requires a 75% majority in the relevant SO/AC." 75% Majority should be lowered to 2/3 majority in my opinion. Ron
participants (12)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Chartier, Mike S -
Chris Disspain -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Gonzalo Navarro -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Kieren McCarthy -
Nigel Roberts -
Ron Baione -
Rubens Kuhl -
Seun Ojedeji