Sorry to come in on this thread so late, but I think Bruce and Julf have hit the main points. The most recent change does make it more difficult (effectively impossible?) to spill the board in response to their implementation of GAC advice. But I agree with those who believe that this is an edge-case, and other mechanisms (IRP) would be invoked first. Also (and looking for Bruce, Keith, Phil or others to confirm this), I believe this change only applies to community effort to spill the entire board, and would not apply to the mechanisms for recall of a single board member. Thanks‹ J. On 2/25/16, 9:10 , "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Hi, Bruce,
If the Board is accused of mission creep or violating its bylaws by following GAC advice, and an IRP panel rules in favour of the complainant, then any three of ccnSO, GNSO, ASO, and ALAC can remove the Board
I think Paul had the concern that removing the board requires both a violation of bylaws and a supportive IRP panel ruling.
I agree that the situation is mostly academic, and we are spending a lot of time thinking up worst case scenarios while the reason the net still works as well as it does is the mutual trust of the community, but I think many of us do realize that the transition, once entered into, can't be undone, and we are also aware of ICANN's less than brilliant historical track record in terms of transparency and accountability.
Julf