Dear Subgroup,
Below is the Dashboard report that I recently submitted to the secretariat. Please let me know if you have any comments and we can adjust accordingly. These reports are due once a month. Safe travels to Hyderabad. See you online on
November 2 and in-person November 7-9.
Guidelines for Standards of Conduct Presumed to be in Good Faith Associated with Exercising Removal of Individual ICANN Board Directors
Description
Article 6 of ICANN’s by-laws creates an Empowered Community (EC) with the right to appoint and removal individual Directors (other than the President.) The EC is composed of the ASO, ccNSO, GNSO, the ALAC and the
GAC otherwise known as Decisional Participants. In the event that a Decisional Participant endeavors to remove an individual board member, the actions of the Decisional Participant are indemnified provided the Decisional Participant has acted in “good faith.”
An indemnification is an obligation to repay the Decisional Participant for expenses the Decisional Participant may incur through exercising the power to remove a board member. The purpose of this subteam is to draft guidelines for conduct that would be
considered good faith actions on the part of the Decisional Participants in order for the indemnification to apply.
Work Plan:
Subgroup is working toward a March Submission.
Start work – completed
Document work to do – completed
Produce draft for subgroup – in progress
Produce draft for CCWG – not completed
Produce draft for PC – not completed
Public Comment – not completed
Revise Draft – not completed
CCWG Approval
Updates:
▪
4 Calls
▪
Defined parameters for guidelines
▪
Discussed the issue of “cause” and drafting challenges around use of the word in the ICANN context
▪
Differentiated between removal of Nom Com and SO/AC appointees to Board
▪
Initial draft of guidelines produced and distributed to list with open questions
▪
Note that initial draft of guidelines is not the full report
▪
Guidelines to be completed and then draft report produced according to prescribed format.
▪
Draft guidelines to posted to Google docs through link on subgroup wiki
▪
Request for legal support submitted to secretariat
▪
Draft guidelines distributed to plenary for initial reaction
Upcoming Activities:
▪
Answer open questions on draft guidelines based on feedback from plenary
▪
Revise draft guidelines and create final “first draft” for subgroup consensus
▪
Begin draft report which includes draft guidelines
Open Items:
▪
Further discussion regarding how to work around the drafting problems regarding use of the word “cause” to document a process
▪
Analyze response from legal committee
▪
Resolve issue regarding of whether creating expectations of standards for board conduct that may trigger a removal may also be creating an inadvertent list of “causes” contrary to WS1 report
▪
Is process fair/reasonable if expectations cannot be expressed beyond “do no harm”?
Progress assessment: 20+ %
Proposed scaling:
5 % - subgroup formed
10% - working methods defined
15% - questions to answer have been documented
20% - work to do has been documented
30% - produced draft for subgroup consensus
40% - produced draft for CCWG considerations and comments
50% - Produced draft for CCWG approval for public consultation
60% - Produced draft for public comment
70% - analyzed public comments
80% - revised draft for CCWG considerations and comments
90% - produced draft for CCWG approval
100% - CCWG approved>
Lori Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association
1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200
Washington DC, USA
+1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman
Find us on: 
Twitter 
LinkedIn 
Facebook
