[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Malcolm
Thank you very muc.
You have described  indeed. the very difficulty that we all have before us.
Every one of us doing her or his  utmost effort to the best of her or his
knowledge. All these efforts are higly appreciated .
Logic language is differnt from criticising language . We are need to be
objectives. We should continuje to put hands in hand and defend the
interest of the community by which we are tasked to prepare the mechanism
that works and implementable and receives the consensus of everybody
including the Board.
We should not consider the board as a confronting entity we should
understand their problems and difficulties and they should iuunderstands
our dutuies, tanks and mandate
We must work together but not against each other
Robin has been a valuable assest of the community and contuned to be so.
She has considerably contributed to the process and every one of us
acjknowledge that .
She is a comptent, knowlegeableand respectful lady
We certainly will be benefitted of her positive and constructive advice
Regards
Kavouss

2015-10-09 17:38 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>:

>
>
> > On 9 Oct 2015, at 16:58, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > May we logically and validly accept or reject a point rather than
> accusing people
>
> I certainly agree Kavouss, and in the same the same tone of respect, would
> not characterise Robin's comment as an accusation. That the Board find
> themselves in a conflict is simply a fact, we are discussing what we should
> do to improve their accountability (or, more properly, the accountability
> of the organisation they control). They find themselves required to
> contribute to this process as stakeholders, as members of the community
> (and particularly respected ones at that) but also as the guardians under a
> fiduciary duty to defend the corporation in its current form - a form that
> we are proposing should be changed. This is the very definition of a
> conflict of interest. To note it casts no aspersions on the integrity or
> honour of the Board; they did not invite it or bring it about (except by
> allowing this CCWG process to be instituted, for which we should thank
> them) but it remains an inescapable fact of the circumstances of this
> discussion. And clearly it is a relevant fact as we consider their
> submission to our Public Comment.
>
> The Board are defending the corporation diligently, as their fiduciary
> duty requires them to do. This places them in opposition to a proposal that
> would change the corporation, and their duty is, for now, only and
> exclusively to defend that corporation. If the Single Member Model goes
> through the meaning of their fiduciary duty will change. They will still
> have to defend the corporation, but rather than for its own sake for the
> sake of the community the corporation serves, as embodied in the Member.
>
> I am sure that from that moment forth they will defend ICANN-with-Member
> every bit as diligently as they now defend the Memberless corporation.
>
> I do not think it besmirches the honour of Board members in any way to
> note this situation, or the conflict of interest it creates, nor do I think
> a proper respect and courtesy compels us to be blind to it.
>
> Malcolm.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151009/7266aa69/attachment.html>