[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #14 24 February
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun Mar 1 17:04:06 UTC 2015
Thanks James,
I think that the largest problem we now have is Board members sent by
AC/SOs who tend to lose touch with their sending organization and the
members therein. The potential for recall, I think, would be a good
remedy and for that reason alone I would support it.
I repeat the question I asked earlier. Do we really believe that any
of our AC/SOs that select Board members are likely to "punish" their
Board member over a particular vote or small set of vote? If they are
displeased with the members overall performance, why should they not
be able to rethink their choice?
Alan
At 01/03/2015 11:24 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:
>Bruce and Alan:
>
>There are parallels / analogs to both of your positions in the US,
>where some states provide judges a lifetime appointment, and others
>require them to stand for election. Life (or exceptionally long)
>terms of office do not ensure that the official is responsive to the
>wishes of the public/Community, while subjecting judges to election
>raises criticisms of "politicizing" the judiciary.
>
>Example: In Iowa, judges are appointed, but periodically must pass
>a public referendum ("Do you believe (justice X) should be retained
>on the court?"). In most elections, this is just a formality, but a
>few years ago our State Supreme Court unanimously overturned a ban
>on same-sex marriage. The court did so stating that, politics
>aside, the prohibition was clearly unconstitutional. But later
>these judges were subject to an active campaign to use the
>referendum mechanism to remove them from office, and several
>were. Were they serving the public interest? And in doing so did
>they lose their jobs?
>
>It is admirable to want to insulate Board members from the shifting
>political climate at ICANN, but I think that ship has already
>sailed. Whether we like it or not, Board members (and their votes)
>will always be lightning rods for controversy. Recognizing this, we
>should probably err on the side of ensuring individual members to be
>responsive to their segment of the community. First, the large
>number of NomCom appointees probably protects the Board/organization
>from significant disruption (who recalls them, btw?) Second, Board
>members should be in regular communication with their community to
>explain/defend their votes. And finally, as Alan noted, very few
>issues would ever be decided by such a slim margin. If any vote is
>cutting it that close, that should be an indication to the Board to
>keep working towards furthering a compromise.
>
>Thank you,
>
>J.
>____________
>James Bladel
>GoDaddy
>
> > On Feb 28, 2015, at 20:08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Bruce, I have several problems with your rationale. First,
> decisison of the ICANN Board which hinge on how a particular (or
> even two) Board Members vote are few and far between, so the
> concept of an AC/SO turfing their Board member(s) because they did
> n't get something is rather hypothetical. Moreover, at least in the
> case, of travel budget requests, I didn't think that the Board
> voted on items at that level (perhaps if they did some of our
> requests would be looked at more kindly!).
> >
> > But on a higher level, do you really think that this kind of
> action would happen? I cannot imagine the GNSO doing something of
> that sort when you were Chair, nor in any time since. Nor do I
> think that ANY of the groups that appoint Board members would.
> >
> > If a Board member selected by an AC or SO is really and
> consistently acting in a way that the AC/SO does not appropriate,
> they certainly would not have selected them if they could have
> foreseen it, so why should they not be able to rectify the
> situation. Some political jurisdiction allow that with their duly
> elected appointees, so why not here.
> >
> > Although I see the attraction in having a formal set of standards
> to identify the more egregious sins, I believe that in reality, in
> the very few cases where either the Board itself or an AC/SO would
> be likely to recall, the reasons may well be outside of that class of problem.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
> > At 28/02/2015 08:01 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> >> Hello Roelof,
> >>
> >>
> >> >> - Recall Board members if not acting in global public
> interest rather than if not acting in segmented interest of a
> community. Consider community capture (especially a segment of community).
> >>
> >> My comment on the call was about a concern that allowing
> segments of the community to recall "their" Board member may move
> away from the objective of ensuring that Board members primarily
> focus on the global public interest in their decision making.
> >>
> >> I noted that under law the directors of ICANN owe a fiduciary
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary) duty to the organization,
> but I also noted that the organization was established to act in
> the global public interest. When new Board members join the
> Board we make clear that they have a fiduciary duty under law and
> must understand the organization's financials etc, but we also make
> clear that they need to act on behalf of the community as a whole,
> not just the part of the community that appointed the director/s.
> >>
> >> The Board currently does have the power to remove a director
> with a 3/4 majority vote. In practice the Board sets clear
> expectations for the conduct of directors through its code of
> conduct:
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/code-of-conduct-2012-05-15-en
> . Also Board members must annually certify that they have read
> this code, and acknowledge in writing that they understand
> it. The code notes that "Board Members should not be, or
> appear to be, subject to influences, interests or relationships
> that conflict with the interests of ICANN or ICANN's ability to
> operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole."
> >>
> >> Under the enforcement of the code of conduct - it notes that
> "Serious breaches of this Code may be cause for dismissal of the
> Board Member committing the infraction in accordance with ICANN's
> Bylaws and applicable law."
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't have a problem in principle with a segment of the ICANN
> community that appoints a director having the ability to recall
> that director, but would prefer that they use the same standard -ie
> the Board Directors' Code of Conduct. I also don't have a
> problem with the Board having the same restriction in the bylaws.
> >>
> >> I think we need to avoid situations where one part of the
> community withdraws a Board member because a Board decision was not
> particularly favourable to their part of the community - even
> though the decision is in the global public interest. e.g. If
> one group didn't get their budget request for travel approved, or
> one group didn't like an increase in registry or registrar fees in
> a particular year. This has the risk of making the board behave
> in a political manner rather than focussing on the global public
> interest. The Board meets with each stakeholder group at ICANN
> and that is the forum where each stakeholder group can put their
> case for a particular decision. Generally Board members appointed
> by a particular part of a community listen to all the parts of the
> community and make a decision in the interests of the community as
> a whole, and don't play an active role on the Board pushing the
> agenda of their part of the community. Board members from a particular par
> >> t of the community do however help explain to other Board
> members the nuances of the concerns from their part of the
> community where that is not clear.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bruce Tonkin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list