[CCWG-ACCT] MEM and enforceability

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Sep 24 06:16:08 UTC 2015


To pick up one of of Thomas's points: Clarifying and
illustrating escalation paths (or perhaps we should more optimistically
call them "resolution paths") would be very helpful.  We (and others) spend
a lot of time talking about "last resorts," in part because it's not
supremely clear that they come only at the end of a road, which hopefully
we get to the end of only rarely.

Greg

On Thursday, September 24, 2015, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:

> All,
> I to not want to get into a legal argument, but want to offer an
> observation. There is a lot of talk about accountability of the community.
> This is important, no doubt about that.
>
> But, let's not forget that decisions will not be made by the Community or
> the Single Member, but by the Board. The community powers are limited to
> asking the Board to redo decisions (with the exception of changes of
> Fundamental Bylaws that need approval). The new decision is still to be
> made by the Board. If Board members are of the opinion that the Community
> asks them to do illegal things or things that might expose them to
> liability or just things that are fundamentally wrong, I am sure the Board
> member would not be available for that.
>
> That means that you need a rogue Community trying to force the Board to do
> wrong things and - for the wrong things to be resolved - a rogue Board,
> too.
>
> I am adding this thought to the discussion as I get the impression that
> some think that the Single Member would replace the Board as a
> decision-making body.
>
> Also, let us please remember that there will and must be consultation
> between the Board and the Community before decisions on the areas where the
> Community Powers are concerned, are taken. We should maybe think about
> making this element more visible as it lowers the risk of friction.
>
> Also, let me add that we should not focus on Community vs Board
> accountability / responsiblity. It is a joint responsibility and mutual
> accountability is what we need.
>
> Thomas
>
> ---
> rickert.net
>
>
> Am 22.09.2015 um 16:32 schrieb Bruce Tonkin <
> Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au');>>:
>
> Hello Avri,
>
>
> I think that the fiduciary responsibility does not change.
>
>
> Yes - that is my understanding of the role of a Board director in any
> model.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20150924/e0002d75/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list