[CCWG-ACCT] An mplication of accountability models being discussed

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Sun Jul 12 14:51:01 UTC 2015

How about adding

'unreasonably restricting directors access to corporate records and 
depriving directors of rights afforded them by law'

'imposing unreasonable requirements . . .'

'promulgating rules not adopted by the board by ad hoc groups of 

'depriving directors of inspection rights afforded them by law'

'requiring burdensome review' before permitting a director to enforce 
his (legal) inspection rights

These are not my words but are taken from the words of the Hon. Dzintra 
Janavs, in granting the peremptory writ of mandate against ICANN in 
Auerbach -v- ICANN to force ICANN to comply with the applicable 
California law.

ICANN is, without doubt, better than it was in 2002.  But I personally 
will not be satisfied with sticking-plaster accountability mechanisms.  
Otherwise, why should there need to be any form accountability 
mechanisms in the United States' constitituion, if you trust the current 
incumbents to do the right thing.

On 12/07/15 14:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> George,
> Jonathan's list is quite an excellent start, much better then mine dealing with examples (by detail).
> Sometimes I think the Board develops a bunker mentality, ie we 15/17/19 (or however many) Board Members are right, so everybody else must be wrong. I have used much choicer words for this transformation that Board Members seem to go through, by the way.
> But, why on earth do you people not ask yourselves why there is no trust in you (the Board)?
> el

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list