[CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin

[Alan Greenberg]

We talk a lot about "fiduciary duty" but seem to be determined to ignore it.

The Board ultimately has to implement the new Bylaws that will effect 
the changes, whatever they are. Board members have a fiduciary duty 
to not do anything that they believe is against the best interests of 
ICANN (forgive the double negative). If they are forwarding a 
proposal that in their collective opinion they will not adopt, they 
have a moral obligation to say that ahead of time.

Knowing that, I do wish there had been active Board participation a 
lot earlier, but we are where we are.

Alan

At 12/10/2015 09:18 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>And that, it seems to me, Bruce, is at the nub of the problem.  In theory,
>the Board has committed to transmitting whatever the CCWG submits, but in
>reserving the right to negate what has been submitted with its own comments
>(which would, in effect, kill any proposal) it takes away with the left hand
>what it gives with the right.  It is, as EL says, now down to who blinks
>first, it seems.
>
>More to the point however, whenever the Board says the first part ("we will
>submit whatever we get") without also saying the second part ("but we
>reserve the right to countermand that submittal with comments") it is
>misleading.  Many in the community read the "we will submit" as an
>endorsement of the CCWG process without limitation.  Leaving out the
>critical limitation makes statements incomplete and adversely effects
>communication and expectation.  Thus, the Board's promise in Buenos Aires
>was read as more palliative than it actually is because of its reserved
>powers.
>
>In addition, when someone (like Senator Thune) asks the question from a
>practical perspective ("will the board accept") then leaving out the caveat
>is an omission that affirmatively obscures the reality.
>
>And then, there is the last sadder point:  Which is that the Board's
>reservation of a right to comment even after it participates in the process
>and, hypothetically, has the community reject its concerns reflects a
>distrust of the MSM and a paternalistic attitude that suggests to me all
>sorts of inadequacies.  If the Board's conclusion is true, then ICANN is not
>fit for the transition.  If it is false, then the Board misreads the
>community badly.  Either prospect is daunting
>
>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: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:21 PM
>To: Accountability Cross Community
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to
>Dublin
>
>Hello Mike,
>
>
> >>  Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the
>Resolution of 10/16/14?
>
>We will do both.
>
>If there is any disagreement - we will include that in a note to the NTIA
>along with the ICG and CCWG Proposals, and then initiate a dialogue with the
>CCWG.   We will advise the NTIA of the outcome of any such process.   The
>NTIA could either wait for the process to conclude, or it could be that the
>NTIA decides that the area of disagreement is not material to the IANA
>stewardship.   I don't wish to speculate, that is for the NTIA to decide.
>The aim clearly is to develop a proposal that has broad support, and avoids
>the need for any follow on process.
>
>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