[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