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

[william currie]

+ 1 Jonathan,  Paul and Milton.

For goodness sake grow up, Bruce and Olivier, accountability is a complex
matter and the CCWG-A is handling it with a considerable level of care,
responsibility and maturity.

Willie

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> Bruce,
> With all due respect, you have departed from your norm of rational
> discussion and made some really silly, off-target comments. Let's try to
> elevate the discussion to a higher level, it might help you with your
> efforts to "raise the standard of board directors."
>
> > 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.
>
> The "keep your boss happy" comment is obviously off target because a boss,
> a single person, can make a unilateral snap decision, whereas removing a
> board member would require a major effort involving consensus support
> across a wide variety of SOs and ACs. Many people, lots of time, lots of
> process. It's obviously wrong to equate the two and I hope you retract your
> distorted comment in order to salvage some semblance of rationality in this
> discussion. (it's revealing, however, how much resistance there is among
> ICANN board member to seeing the broader community as their 'boss').
>
> > 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.
>
> Regarding "bread and circuses," ICANN is not anything approximating a
> democracy with plebiscites. I assume you are familiar with the actual way
> board members are appointed by SOs and Nomcom? Or would you like me to
> remind you, perhaps you have forgotten how you got on the board. Board
> members' tenure in office is not dependent on winning or losing majority
> support at any moment in time. A removal process, to repeat, involves major
> expenses; once a board member is appointed he or she enjoys tremendous
> inertia and removing them has very high bars.  So no one is going to remove
> them on a whim and require "bread and circuses" to be seduced into keeping
> them in office.
>
> The point of this exchange, if you recall, is whether there should be a
> pre-defined list of reasons for a board member's removal. I was explaining
> that there should not be. I was also explaining that this was a settled
> issue in the reform plan.
>
> --MM
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:;>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151125/f6b5cd3b/attachment.html>