<p dir="ltr">I read good progress afterall :)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks</p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 11 Sep 2014 19:15, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:09:49AM -0700, Mike Roberts wrote:<br>
<br>
> Before this thread goes any further, someone should ask a lawyer<br>
> familiar with California statutes to give an opinion on the ICANN<br>
> Board’s ability to delegate its powers to a third party entity,<br>
> whether inside the bylaws or not.<br>
<br>
That's actually another thing that I like about John's idea -- it<br>
isn't actually giving others any positive power, but instead giving<br>
others the negative power to stop the Board (basically, by<br>
reconstituting it). I suppose you could argue that vacating a<br>
decision would be exercising a power, and if that's the case (I have<br>
no basis on which to claim one way or the other) then perhaps only the<br>
member-removal option ought to be chosen. The reason I would like to<br>
have both is because I think it'd be really disruptive to remove Board<br>
members with any frequency.<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote></div>