[CCWG-ACCT] A modest proposal to start the week

[Roelof Meijer]

Alan,

>To the extent that we ware willing to rely on a
>Board with good faith to honour the Bylaws


I think we should do exactly that, as there is no reason why not to. After
all, the community selects all board members (be it through the NomCom or
SOAC processes). So one could argue that if one day we end up with an “all
bad” board, that such was the wish of the community. Or the unlikely
outcome of very unlikely collective stupidity…

Cheers,

Roelof




On 02-06-15 00:08, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

>To the extent that we ware willing to rely on a
>Board with good faith to honour the Bylaws (as
>they have to date - a Board could have removed
>the concept of AC/SO Directors if they had
>chosen), I beleive that is indeed correct.
>
>Alan
>
>At 01/06/2015 03:42 PM, Roelof Meijer wrote:
>>Alan,
>>
>>"The prime power is to challenge ICANN on its decisions and
>>to ratify some of those decisions²
>>
>>The way I understand it, we do not need either UA¹s or ICANN to become a
>>membership organization, to do that
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Roelof
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 01-06-15 16:59, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >I support Avri.
>> >
>> >First, suing ICANN is NOT the only power they have. That is a last
>> >resort power that we are told will never (well nearly never) be
>> >exercised. The prime power is to challenge ICANN on its decisions and
>> >to ratify some of those decisions. As described in the community
>> >mechanisms in the CCWG Draft Proposal.
>> >
>> >We are putting these mechanisms in place because we have a lack of
>> >trust in the good judgement of the Board. But we are will now have an
>> >AC/So either appoint individuals, or appoint individuals to a UA. And
>> >since that AC/SO has no legal status, it cannot "enforce" that its
>> >representatives are truly following their directives. But we will
>> >trust them because they are part of our community. But if we appoint
>> >this same person to the Board, they are no longer trustworthy.
>> >
>> >And no doubt these views are also out of order.
>> >
>> >Alan
>> >
>> >At 01/06/2015 10:45 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>On 01-Jun-15 10:35, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>> >> > What is it you fear that these "unaccountable UA" might do?
>> >>
>> >>That they not be accountable to the stakeholder they are allegedly
>> >>accountable to.
>> >>
>> >>As has been brought up by more than one of our advisers, if they are
>>the
>> >>main point of ICANN accountability, it must be possible to guarantee
>> >>their accountability as much as we need to guarantee the Board's
>> >>accountability when it hold the token for ICANN accountability.
>> >>
>> >>Having been a member or observer of many of these entities I have fond
>> >>that they are often disorganized, ruled by a few strong personalities
>>in
>> >>a sea of apathy, and given to making up rules on the fly when needed.
>> >>They do not even necessarily follow the rules htey have agreed to in
>>the
>> >>charers, though some do, not all of them.  And for the most part,
>>though
>> >>they are supposed to transparent, most aren't.
>> >>
>> >>So what i fear is that they are accountable to none except the few
>> >>strong personalities.
>> >>
>> >>So if we want to base our trust in ICANN on a membership model, we
>>need
>> >>to make sure it is at least as accountable as what we have now.
>> >>
>> >>avri
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>---
>> >>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> >>http://www.avast.com
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>