Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 9 Apr 2016 2:36 p.m., "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:

“This implies that you(some) don't think board should be able to remove

it's members.”

No, it wasn’t to imply that at all.

SO: Really? but....

No one (to my knowledge) objected to the board being able to remove members.

SO: ... how will the board be able to remove their members if what you said below earlier is the case: Mike wrote: "..Some expressed the desire that the EC consent be real and not perfunctory." This is likened to saying I have access to open a door, yet you have the keys.

But it is also true that no one (to my knowledge) objected to the EC being required to give consent.

SO: Correct

So the question is what form the consent should take.

SO: .. And you said it has to be real and not automatic as initially recommended. Which means technically that board is indeed limited in its members removal

But as Eberhard has said ¾ is a high threshold, and as Marilyn has pointed out it is (yet another) rare corner case. So it’s nothing to fall on a sword over, and I’m sure we’ll settle it on Monday.

SO: Even though this has been said previously, it's good that there is a common understanding now(which is the most important) [1] Regards 1. I understand that at times it takes certain people to repeat things before some of us can be convinced.

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 12:24 AM To: Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> Cc: Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard@gmail.com) <

turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org

Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions

Hi,

This implies that you(some) don't think board should be able to remove it's members. While I wonder why you have such view, I don't think that its a question/response we should be sending to the lawyers as it is a decision the CCWG has to made.

In the past, we have pushed so much question to the lawyers without actually indicating what we want. It is my hope that we will avoid that at this stage; we should always indicate what we want so layers can advice on how we may go about it (if at all possible).

That said, I think we need to recognise the implication of what you've said; it implies that a community process will need to be put in place to get the EC's approval and I wonder how long that would take. The other question from that is what the status of the menber would be during that process. I don't know of any organisation that makes its board so dependent in the manner you are proposing.

Andrew raised a valid concern about possibility of board removing a member that was re-appointed (within the same term). While I believe such scenario would be so extreme and close to impossible, as I have earlier said a way to approach it could be to subject subsequent removal to actual approval of EC. However the Co-Chairs in their wisdom has thrown the question of "how to achieve what we want" to the lawyers which I believe is in order. I do think we should be setting processes that helps the board know the consequences of their actions and not the one that always prevents them from acting.

Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 8 Apr 2016 10:49 p.m., "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:

...

RE: Q6

“concerns have been expressed that there might be issues when the

community tries to seat Board members and then the Board removes those board members instantly.”

...

I’m not sure that captures the whole concern. Some expressed the desire

that the EC consent be real and not perfunctory.

...

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:

accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte

...

Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 5:35 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Bylaws Drafting - Questions

All,

Please find attached 2 documents.

The first is the compilation of the answers provided to lawyers on Thursday April 7th.

The second is a list of remaining open questions. For some of these questions the CCWG co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed the original proposed replies or added some new replies - these are clearly indicated in the document.

Co-chairs, rapporteurs and staff have tried to be dutiful in capturing the questions from the list but it is possible some were missed. If you have submitted a question or issue please verify it is included in this version of the document.

Please remember that the deadline for submitting questions and issues is 23:59 UTC Saturday April 9 2016.

We are looking forward to continuing the process of addressing these issues and questions at our Monday April 11th meeting at 19:00 UTC.

Bernard Turcotte

ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG Co-Chairs

Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill, Leon Sanchez

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