[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Session #14 24 February

[Alan Greenberg]

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