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

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Wed Nov 25 16:09:54 UTC 2015


Oliver

I don't have trust in the Board, not because of the people on it, but because as an institution, it is a threat  .... in the absence of accountability to the US government, it must be replaced with accountability to the community.  And that is precisely the lesson we should learn from democratic governance.  There is no country in the world where the ONLY limitation on executive overreach is to replace through election.  Every institution of which I'm aware, constrains power through express limitations and restrictions in founding documents.  Not because they hate anyone but because they fear unchecked power.  

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: Jonathan Zuck [mailto:JZuck at actonline.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 10:00 AM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update

Olivier,
Take heart Olivier. While there are some extreme views which are expressed in frustration, they aren’t coming for the folks who are actually doing the the work. I think it is safe to say that the board/organization hasn’t handled this whole process very well from the start so there is some unnecessary friction but this exercise is really NOT about the current board. Instead, it is about an organization with very limited accountability, about to be “set free” by the USG. While there are a number of efforts with “accountability” in their name, the only actual mechanism is, as you say, to elect a different board which takes a few years and is itself subject to change by a future board. So the solitary accountability mechanism which exists is not very practical to use. Add to that the notion that the board, once appointed, is legally responsible for the organization, not the community, and there exists the potential for some conflict in the future and it’s worth discussion how those conflicts should be resolved. I agree with Bruce that the board should strive to consider the interests of the whole internet community but it’s dangerous to assume that they will always do so. Instead, building a framework of checks and balances where the community as whole can object creates an environment of mutual responsibility that is healthier or the longer term.

We need to stop having this discussion about trust as there are just as many examples of the board expressing mistrust for the community as the other way around (secret board resolutions, concerns over the membership model, etc.). Instead it is about conflict resolution in the future and how things should ultimately resolve and finding the right balance of power. The conclusion of the community is that in certain areas an impasse should lean toward the community. That’s not about mistrust, proxies for the community, much less hatred. It’s just about some rare scenarios that might occur in the future and how to handle them.
J




On 11/25/15, 8:44 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of ocl at gih.com> wrote:

>Hello Paul,
>Hello all,
>
>for the record, I don't agree that the community is a much better proxy 
>for the "public as a whole" than a Board that's selected entirely by 
>the community or community representatives. This is akin to say that a 
>self appointed community group is better suited to running a country 
>than a democratically elected government.
>
>I've said it in the past and say it again: if you don't like the Board 
>director that your community has selected, vote for someone else next time.
>
>But I'd like to also call on everyone here to stop the threats, the 
>accusations, the hate - yes, there is actual hate in some of the 
>comments - the complete FUD and full verbal assault of ICANN's 
>structures and Board in the name of making ICANN more accountable. The 
>more I read the allegations on the CCWG mailing list, the more I have 
>doubts that this community is actually able to behave in a rational and 
>measured fashion.
>
>So here's my question to everyone here: did you ever ask yourself why 
>you have so little trust in people your community has voted for? This 
>has been asked before and I have never heard a response that made sense.
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Olivier
>
>On 25/11/2015 02:16, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
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