[CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Dear Bruce

I completely appreciate what you are trying to say here.  And I completely
disagree.  The Board is running a corporation, to be sure -- but one that
has at its core a responsibility for the management of a resource that is at
the heart of economic growth, political freedom, etc. today.  I respect the
Board and want them to be engaged.  But no group of individuals, however
wise or thoughtful they may be, should have an independent power to define
how this resource should be used.  In the end, Milton is right (did I just
say that???)  the "community" is a much better proxy for the "public as a
whole" than is the Board ... and the Board has to understand that.  In fact,
if I were to characterize this entire accountability process it would be
that we are institutionalizing that insight ....

Regards
Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key



-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 6:26 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update

Hello Milton,

>>  you are subject to removal by designators through a process that
involves x, y and z.... keep your community happy, or you might be on the
receiving end of a recall.

That reminds me of two things.

The old school of keep your boss happy, and other than that you can do what
you want.    That leads to situations like the recent emissions scandal at a
car company.

Keep the immediate community that elects you happy - with bread and circuses
(an old roman approach).   That leads to situations like some sporting
organizations where as long as you keep the relevant officials that
appoint/elect you happy with copious entertainment - you can do what you
want.

At the board level we have been working on training and other initiatives to
raise the standard for Board directors to act on behalf of the public as a
whole (not just those that can attend an ICANN meeting and are directly
involved in voting for or appointing directors) and also train Board
directors in best practice of corporate governance.  

So while I accept your proposal that we must "keep the community happy", I
believe that is necessary but not sufficient.   We must also continue to
raise the standard of Board directors.   I believe that was part of the
recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community