[CCWG-ACCT] MEM and enforceability
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Thu Sep 24 08:57:05 UTC 2015
Completely agree with Greg - escalation and a greater description of
escalation/resolution paths is something that should be worked on.
On 24/09/2015 07:16, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <http://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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150924/b9892815/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list