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

[George Sadowsky]

Willie,

I find this an offensive statement from you as an adviser to the process, and inconsistent with our previous interactions.

George

 
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 12:47 PM, william currie <willie.currie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> + 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 <mailto: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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151125/5fb316cb/attachment.html>