Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Individual ICANN Board Members removal requirements
Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom. So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations. Alan At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the board collectively why should we not so same for removal
- It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member)
Hello Alan, On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom.
I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below as presented by legal council: ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: - Set up community mechanism as sole member - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors - Address membership structure with one member In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment.
So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations.
Based on my above i hope you get my point now. Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often than we may have thought. We need to know know every board member removed is removed because he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be a second reason) Regards
Alan
At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the concept
of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the board collectively why should we not so same for removal
- It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Seun, my message was only about appointments. To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects a Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the other SO/ACS vote not to? a or b? Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Alan,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom.
I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below as presented by legal council:
ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: - Set up community mechanism as sole member - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors - Address membership structure with one member
In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment.
So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is
simply
honouring the decision of the individual organizations.
Based on my above i hope you get my point now.
Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often than we may have thought.
We need to know know every board member removed is removed because he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be a second reason)
Regards
Alan
At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the
concept
of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the board collectively why should we not so same for removal
- It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, my message was only about appointments.
To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects a Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the other SO/ACS vote not to?
a or b?
Not sure i got your option "b" correctly. It is my understanding that if SO or AC selects board members post-transition they will be doing so as CMSM (since thats the only mechanism to formerly appoint and remove members) That said, i think one point from Jordan's summary would be sufficient for me as it concerns board removal requirements: *1. Consultation requirement added*
Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered, there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote.
Just for record, i am more about the removal process and not the appointment. Regards
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Alan,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom.
I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below as presented by legal council:
ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: - Set up community mechanism as sole member - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors - Address membership structure with one member
In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment.
So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations.
Based on my above i hope you get my point now.
Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often than we may have thought.
We need to know know every board member removed is removed because he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be a second reason)
Regards
Alan
At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the
concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the board collectively why should we not so same for removal
- It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
I'm not Seun, but it's clear to me that for appointments, it is (a) and not (b). In other words, the CMSM is a pure pass-through of SO/AC board appointments, and has no capacity to debate or vote on a particular SO/AC's appointments. Greg On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, my message was only about appointments.
To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects a Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the other SO/ACS vote not to?
a or b?
Not sure i got your option "b" correctly. It is my understanding that if SO or AC selects board members post-transition they will be doing so as CMSM (since thats the only mechanism to formerly appoint and remove members)
That said, i think one point from Jordan's summary would be sufficient for me as it concerns board removal requirements:
*1. Consultation requirement added*
Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered, there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote.
Just for record, i am more about the removal process and not the appointment.
Regards
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Alan,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom.
I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below as presented by legal council:
ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: - Set up community mechanism as sole member - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors - Address membership structure with one member
In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment.
So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations.
Based on my above i hope you get my point now.
Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often than we may have thought.
We need to know know every board member removed is removed because he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be a second reason)
Regards
Alan
At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the
concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the board collectively why should we not so same for removal
- It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not Seun, but it's clear to me that for appointments, it is (a) and not (b). In other words, the CMSM is a pure pass-through of SO/AC board appointments, and has no capacity to debate or vote on a particular SO/AC's appointments.
Correct! and by such CMSM pass through, the SO/AC is indirectly agreeing that the particular board member will act in the interest of CMSM (the organisation/community) and so the removal process should require confirmation from CMSM that the board indeed violated such community interest (as defined in the bylaw) I think its important we note that no single SO/AC will have a right to legally appoint/remove post-transition. Regards
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
Seun, my message was only about appointments.
To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects a Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the other SO/ACS vote not to?
a or b?
Not sure i got your option "b" correctly. It is my understanding that if SO or AC selects board members post-transition they will be doing so as CMSM (since thats the only mechanism to formerly appoint and remove members)
That said, i think one point from Jordan's summary would be sufficient for me as it concerns board removal requirements:
*1. Consultation requirement added*
Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered, there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote.
Just for record, i am more about the removal process and not the appointment.
Regards
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Alan,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom.
I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below as presented by legal council:
ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: - Set up community mechanism as sole member - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors - Address membership structure with one member
In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment.
So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations.
Based on my above i hope you get my point now.
Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often than we may have thought.
We need to know know every board member removed is removed because he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be a second reason)
Regards
Alan
At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the
concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the board collectively why should we not so same for removal
- It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ 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>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
hi Seun I'm sorry, but this is simply not correct. Nobody is proposing to change the bylaws provisions that set out the current appointment process. They are enforceable under the law. There is a legal "rubber stamp" for the decisions of the SOs, the ALAC and the NomCom, but in substance things are as they are today. There is no proposal to give the "member" the right to second-guess those appointment decisions. The question we are debating is whether the same in reverse should apply to removal, or whether there actually should be some discretion or decision beyond the appointing body. cheers Jordan On 18 July 2015 at 16:37, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not Seun, but it's clear to me that for appointments, it is (a) and not (b). In other words, the CMSM is a pure pass-through of SO/AC board appointments, and has no capacity to debate or vote on a particular SO/AC's appointments.
Correct! and by such CMSM pass through, the SO/AC is indirectly agreeing that the particular board member will act in the interest of CMSM (the organisation/community) and so the removal process should require confirmation from CMSM that the board indeed violated such community interest (as defined in the bylaw)
I think its important we note that no single SO/AC will have a right to legally appoint/remove post-transition.
Regards
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, my message was only about appointments.
To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects a Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the other SO/ACS vote not to?
a or b?
Not sure i got your option "b" correctly. It is my understanding that if SO or AC selects board members post-transition they will be doing so as CMSM (since thats the only mechanism to formerly appoint and remove members)
That said, i think one point from Jordan's summary would be sufficient for me as it concerns board removal requirements:
*1. Consultation requirement added*
Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered, there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote.
Just for record, i am more about the removal process and not the appointment.
Regards
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Alan,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom.
I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below as presented by legal council:
ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: - Set up community mechanism as sole member - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors - Address membership structure with one member
In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment.
So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations.
Based on my above i hope you get my point now.
Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often than we may have thought.
We need to know know every board member removed is removed because he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be a second reason)
Regards
Alan
At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the > concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply > indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM > (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the > board collectively why should we not so same for removal > > - It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers > without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't > know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members > based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually > certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member) >
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ 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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
hi Seun
I'm sorry, but this is simply not correct.
Nobody is proposing to change the bylaws provisions that set out the current appointment process. They are enforceable under the law.
I am not sure i get what you are saying is not correct here, where in my mail did i say the appointment process will be changed. What i said was that based on CMSM, the power to appoint/remove board would lie on the CMSM (since that is the single member). We have however determined that the appointment process by SO/AC remain the same even though its still the member that has appointed "technically"
There is a legal "rubber stamp" for the decisions of the SOs, the ALAC and the NomCom, but in substance things are as they are today.
+1 for today but i am talking about post transition and when CMSM is implemented.
There is no proposal to give the "member" the right to second-guess those appointment decisions.
+1 and that is what i understood as well.
The question we are debating is whether the same in reverse should apply to removal, or whether there actually should be some discretion or decision beyond the appointing body.
Exactly my point and i don't think the reverse should happen. I hope that clarifies my point. Again i have no problem about appointment, i however have about removal Regards
cheers Jordan
On 18 July 2015 at 16:37, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not Seun, but it's clear to me that for appointments, it is (a) and not (b). In other words, the CMSM is a pure pass-through of SO/AC board appointments, and has no capacity to debate or vote on a particular SO/AC's appointments.
Correct! and by such CMSM pass through, the SO/AC is indirectly agreeing that the particular board member will act in the interest of CMSM (the organisation/community) and so the removal process should require confirmation from CMSM that the board indeed violated such community interest (as defined in the bylaw)
I think its important we note that no single SO/AC will have a right to legally appoint/remove post-transition.
Regards
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, my message was only about appointments.
To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects a Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the other SO/ACS vote not to?
a or b?
Not sure i got your option "b" correctly. It is my understanding that if SO or AC selects board members post-transition they will be doing so as CMSM (since thats the only mechanism to formerly appoint and remove members)
That said, i think one point from Jordan's summary would be sufficient for me as it concerns board removal requirements:
*1. Consultation requirement added*
Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered, there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote.
Just for record, i am more about the removal process and not the appointment.
Regards
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Alan,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be > required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it > would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint > would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom. >
I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below as presented by legal council:
ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: - Set up community mechanism as sole member - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors - Address membership structure with one member
In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment.
> > So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is > simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations. >
Based on my above i hope you get my point now.
Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often than we may have thought.
We need to know know every board member removed is removed because he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be a second reason)
Regards
> > Alan > > > At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > - SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the >> concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply >> indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM >> (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the >> board collectively why should we not so same for removal >> >> - It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers >> without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't >> know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members >> based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually >> certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member) >> > >
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ 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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Seun, That is absolutely incorrect. What you state is not a "pass-through" at all. This has to be a pure pass-through, and there must be no implications from that. There is no such "indirect agreement." And if that needs to be explicitly spelled out, it should be. A SO/AC's appointment is a SO/AC's appointment, no more and no less. The SO/AC therefore has the absolute discretion to remove their appointed members, and the CMSM has no say in the matter, just as they have no say in the appointment. Greg On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not Seun, but it's clear to me that for appointments, it is (a) and not (b). In other words, the CMSM is a pure pass-through of SO/AC board appointments, and has no capacity to debate or vote on a particular SO/AC's appointments.
Correct! and by such CMSM pass through, the SO/AC is indirectly agreeing that the particular board member will act in the interest of CMSM (the organisation/community) and so the removal process should require confirmation from CMSM that the board indeed violated such community interest (as defined in the bylaw)
I think its important we note that no single SO/AC will have a right to legally appoint/remove post-transition.
Regards
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, my message was only about appointments.
To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects a Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the other SO/ACS vote not to?
a or b?
Not sure i got your option "b" correctly. It is my understanding that if SO or AC selects board members post-transition they will be doing so as CMSM (since thats the only mechanism to formerly appoint and remove members)
That said, i think one point from Jordan's summary would be sufficient for me as it concerns board removal requirements:
*1. Consultation requirement added*
Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered, there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote.
Just for record, i am more about the removal process and not the appointment.
Regards
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Alan,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom.
I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below as presented by legal council:
ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: - Set up community mechanism as sole member - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors - Address membership structure with one member
In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment.
So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations.
Based on my above i hope you get my point now.
Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often than we may have thought.
We need to know know every board member removed is removed because he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be a second reason)
Regards
Alan
At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the > concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply > indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM > (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the > board collectively why should we not so same for removal > > - It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers > without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't > know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members > based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually > certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member) >
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ 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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Hi Greg, Maybe the "agreement" i used may have seem to imply that CMSM would have to formerly gives its stamp on respective SO/AC appointment. Thats was not my intent and i apologise if you read it that way. I will try again. For clarity, below is what i currently understand: - Post-Transition, ICANN will become a member organisation - Its a member that exercise community powers including appointing and removing board members - The community currently agrees to put a process that ensures current appointment process is not questioned by CMSM even though its technically the member that appoints - Part of the community is saying removal of board members should be questioned by CMSM before CMSM exercises such power, while other part of the community are saying CMSM should not question such move from respective SO/ACs Can you please tell me which of the 4 items above is incorrect as you seem to have emphatically stated? Regards On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun,
That is absolutely incorrect. What you state is not a "pass-through" at all. This has to be a pure pass-through, and there must be no implications from that.
There is no such "indirect agreement." And if that needs to be explicitly spelled out, it should be. A SO/AC's appointment is a SO/AC's appointment, no more and no less. The SO/AC therefore has the absolute discretion to remove their appointed members, and the CMSM has no say in the matter, just as they have no say in the appointment.
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not Seun, but it's clear to me that for appointments, it is (a) and not (b). In other words, the CMSM is a pure pass-through of SO/AC board appointments, and has no capacity to debate or vote on a particular SO/AC's appointments.
Correct! and by such CMSM pass through, the SO/AC is indirectly agreeing that the particular board member will act in the interest of CMSM (the organisation/community) and so the removal process should require confirmation from CMSM that the board indeed violated such community interest (as defined in the bylaw)
I think its important we note that no single SO/AC will have a right to legally appoint/remove post-transition.
Regards
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, my message was only about appointments.
To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects a Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the other SO/ACS vote not to?
a or b?
Not sure i got your option "b" correctly. It is my understanding that if SO or AC selects board members post-transition they will be doing so as CMSM (since thats the only mechanism to formerly appoint and remove members)
That said, i think one point from Jordan's summary would be sufficient for me as it concerns board removal requirements:
*1. Consultation requirement added*
Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered, there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote.
Just for record, i am more about the removal process and not the appointment.
Regards
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Alan,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be > required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it > would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint > would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom. >
I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below as presented by legal council:
ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: - Set up community mechanism as sole member - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors - Address membership structure with one member
In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment.
> > So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is > simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations. >
Based on my above i hope you get my point now.
Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often than we may have thought.
We need to know know every board member removed is removed because he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be a second reason)
Regards
> > Alan > > > At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > - SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the >> concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply >> indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM >> (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the >> board collectively why should we not so same for removal >> >> - It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers >> without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't >> know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members >> based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually >> certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member) >> > >
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ 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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Part of the community is saying removal of board members should be
questioned by CMSM before CMSM exercises such power, while other part of the community are saying CMSM should not question such move from respective SO/ACs
For a member or members appointed by a particular SO/AC, the SO/AC will have the right to remove that member without any questioning or interference from other SO/ACs (or the CMSM as a whole. I don't think I heard any significant support for questioning or interference by other SO/ACs (or the CMSM as a whole) in this scenario. This is distinct from the issue of "Total (board) Recall." Greg On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Maybe the "agreement" i used may have seem to imply that CMSM would have to formerly gives its stamp on respective SO/AC appointment. Thats was not my intent and i apologise if you read it that way. I will try again. For clarity, below is what i currently understand:
- Post-Transition, ICANN will become a member organisation - Its a member that exercise community powers including appointing and removing board members - The community currently agrees to put a process that ensures current appointment process is not questioned by CMSM even though its technically the member that appoints - Part of the community is saying removal of board members should be questioned by CMSM before CMSM exercises such power, while other part of the community are saying CMSM should not question such move from respective SO/ACs
Can you please tell me which of the 4 items above is incorrect as you seem to have emphatically stated?
Regards
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun,
That is absolutely incorrect. What you state is not a "pass-through" at all. This has to be a pure pass-through, and there must be no implications from that.
There is no such "indirect agreement." And if that needs to be explicitly spelled out, it should be. A SO/AC's appointment is a SO/AC's appointment, no more and no less. The SO/AC therefore has the absolute discretion to remove their appointed members, and the CMSM has no say in the matter, just as they have no say in the appointment.
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not Seun, but it's clear to me that for appointments, it is (a) and not (b). In other words, the CMSM is a pure pass-through of SO/AC board appointments, and has no capacity to debate or vote on a particular SO/AC's appointments.
Correct! and by such CMSM pass through, the SO/AC is indirectly agreeing that the particular board member will act in the interest of CMSM (the organisation/community) and so the removal process should require confirmation from CMSM that the board indeed violated such community interest (as defined in the bylaw)
I think its important we note that no single SO/AC will have a right to legally appoint/remove post-transition.
Regards
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, my message was only about appointments.
To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects a Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the other SO/ACS vote not to?
a or b?
Not sure i got your option "b" correctly. It is my understanding that if SO or AC selects board members post-transition they will be doing so as CMSM (since thats the only mechanism to formerly appoint and remove members)
That said, i think one point from Jordan's summary would be sufficient for me as it concerns board removal requirements:
*1. Consultation requirement added*
Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered, there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote.
Just for record, i am more about the removal process and not the appointment.
Regards
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Alan, > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg < > alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: > >> Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be >> required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it >> would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint >> would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom. >> > > I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or > Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments > were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below > as presented by legal council: > > ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: > - Set up community mechanism as sole member > - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors > - Address membership structure with one member > > In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of > assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed > appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment. > >> >> So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is >> simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations. >> > > Based on my above i hope you get my point now. > > Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to > happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the > moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of > other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often > than we may have thought. > > We need to know know every board member removed is removed because > he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she > did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be > a second reason) > > Regards > >> >> Alan >> >> >> At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >> - SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the >>> concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply >>> indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM >>> (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the >>> board collectively why should we not so same for removal >>> >>> - It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM powers >>> without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I don't >>> know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual members >>> based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its usually >>> certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its member) >>> >> >> > >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ 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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Part of the community is saying removal of board members should be
questioned by CMSM before CMSM exercises such power, while other part of the community are saying CMSM should not question such move from respective SO/ACs
For a member or members appointed by a particular SO/AC, the SO/AC will have the right to remove that member without any questioning or interference from other SO/ACs (or the CMSM as a whole. I don't think I heard any significant support for questioning or interference by other SO/ACs (or the CMSM as a whole) in this scenario.
Okay thanks for selecting the last item (which means you agree with the first 3 items?). Well it depends on what you mean by significant (especially since you have a different opinion). I heard and i am part of those who suggested that SO/AC individual removal of its board should not be solely done by the SO/AC but in consultation with other SO/ACs i.e the SO/AC can trigger a removal process but *must* carry out a consultation process beyond its community.
This is distinct from the issue of "Total (board) Recall."
I did not say anything about Total (board) Recall which is quite clear, so i guess this is mute. Regards
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Maybe the "agreement" i used may have seem to imply that CMSM would have to formerly gives its stamp on respective SO/AC appointment. Thats was not my intent and i apologise if you read it that way. I will try again. For clarity, below is what i currently understand:
- Post-Transition, ICANN will become a member organisation - Its a member that exercise community powers including appointing and removing board members - The community currently agrees to put a process that ensures current appointment process is not questioned by CMSM even though its technically the member that appoints - Part of the community is saying removal of board members should be questioned by CMSM before CMSM exercises such power, while other part of the community are saying CMSM should not question such move from respective SO/ACs
Can you please tell me which of the 4 items above is incorrect as you seem to have emphatically stated?
Regards
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun,
That is absolutely incorrect. What you state is not a "pass-through" at all. This has to be a pure pass-through, and there must be no implications from that.
There is no such "indirect agreement." And if that needs to be explicitly spelled out, it should be. A SO/AC's appointment is a SO/AC's appointment, no more and no less. The SO/AC therefore has the absolute discretion to remove their appointed members, and the CMSM has no say in the matter, just as they have no say in the appointment.
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not Seun, but it's clear to me that for appointments, it is (a) and not (b). In other words, the CMSM is a pure pass-through of SO/AC board appointments, and has no capacity to debate or vote on a particular SO/AC's appointments.
Correct! and by such CMSM pass through, the SO/AC is indirectly agreeing that the particular board member will act in the interest of CMSM (the organisation/community) and so the removal process should require confirmation from CMSM that the board indeed violated such community interest (as defined in the bylaw)
I think its important we note that no single SO/AC will have a right to legally appoint/remove post-transition.
Regards
Greg
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Seun, my message was only about appointments. > > To be clear, is it your understanding that when an SO or AC selects > a Board member, a) the CMSM *must* make that appointment, or b) may the > other SO/ACS vote not to? > > a or b? >
Not sure i got your option "b" correctly. It is my understanding that if SO or AC selects board members post-transition they will be doing so as CMSM (since thats the only mechanism to formerly appoint and remove members)
That said, i think one point from Jordan's summary would be sufficient for me as it concerns board removal requirements:
*1. Consultation requirement added* > > Where the process to remove a director or the Board is triggered, > there would be a public discussion in the Community Forum to discuss the > matter, before the decision-maker is allowed to take a vote. >
Just for record, i am more about the removal process and not the appointment.
Regards
> > Alan > -- > Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. > > On July 18, 2015 3:50:15 PM GMT+02:00, Seun Ojedeji < > seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello Alan, >> >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg < >> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: >> >>> Seun, I think that you may have misunderstood. The CMSM would be >>> required pass on the appointment decisions of the SO/AC/NomCom, but it >>> would not take an independent decision on these. The decision to appoint >>> would remain the sole right of the individual SO, AC or NomCom. >>> >> >> I think i understand that correctly Alan; even though SO,AC or >> Nomcom appoints, the bylaw would legally recognise that the appointments >> were made by CMSM. Otherwise there will not have been need for item 2 below >> as presented by legal council: >> >> ICANN Bylaw moderation required for CMSM: >> - Set up community mechanism as sole member >> - Alter director selection process so CMSM *elects* directors >> - Address membership structure with one member >> >> In my country the president appoints its minister but the "house of >> assembly" approves it. While we may say president indeed does indeed >> appoint constitutionally the assembly is part of the appointment. >> >>> >>> So we are not populating the Board collectively, the collective is >>> simply honouring the decision of the individual organizations. >>> >> >> Based on my above i hope you get my point now. >> >> Again as its been said often, board removal is an unlikely thing to >> happen(although i will argue its because we have not such provision at the >> moment). However if we make SO/AC board member removal so independent of >> other parts of the community, then we may experience board removal often >> than we may have thought. >> >> We need to know know every board member removed is removed because >> he did not act in-line with the bylaw and not necessarily because he/she >> did not act inline with a particular SO/AC's view (even though that can be >> a second reason) >> >> Regards >> >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> >>> At 18/07/2015 07:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>> - SO/AC removing their individual board members goes against the >>>> concept of "Community Mechanism as Sole Member" (CMSM) which simply >>>> indicates that appointment of board members would now be executed by CMSM >>>> (even though individual SO/AC does the selection). So if we populate the >>>> board collectively why should we not so same for removal >>>> >>>> - It would make no procedural sense for us to exercise CMSM >>>> powers without the bodies that constitutes that mechanism approving it- I >>>> don't know of any organisation where this is done. Even in individual >>>> members based organisations, a member cannot remove any board member, its >>>> usually certain number of members.(including if it were board removing its >>>> member) >>>> >>> >>> >> >>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ 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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Seun Ojedeji