[CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin....

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Sep 28 18:12:22 UTC 2015


I certainly think we should take into account the Board's proposals.  We
should consider each option they put forward (as we should with other
comments).  We should consider how to clarify and fill in gaps and meet
concerns.  We can do all that, and we will still be left with the nub of
the problem.

The Membership of a US non-profit (here, a California Public Benefit
Corporation) has a power relationship to the entity's Board that is unique
(and uniquely powerful).  A designator can replicate that power level in
connection with a narrow set of rights (relating to Board appointment and
removal), but not regarding the rest.  There really is no analogue to the
Single Member in the Board's model.  There's no compromise position between
"member" and "not-member."  You can get close -- either by constraining the
powers of the Member to deal with the concerns about the Member's powers,
or by strengthening the powers granted to the Community in the bylaws and
by protecting those strengthened powers from dilution or being shunted
aside.  But you are still left with the hard nub of the question, which is
whether the Community speak to the Board possessing the powers of a Member,
or not.

Greg

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Avri
> As long as we publish the third proposal contains a compromise between
> CMSM and MEM as modified by my preliminary suggestion( after refinement) I
> have no problem with your proposal. What I have difficulty with is the
> intolerable and conservative position of some colleagues that do not wish
> to take onto account the Board,s proposal.
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 28 Sep 2015, at 03:34, avri doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think slice and dice on the proposal would lose its internal coherence
> as a proposal. If we change anything substantive, I think the entire thing
> needs to go out for review.
>
> I know I just agreed to a 'moratorium,' but I don't want to leave ideas
> sitting long enough for them to be called 'agreed upon.'
>
> avri
>
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Date:09/27/2015 7:49 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin....
>
> Hello Becky,
>
>
>
>
>
> >>  I agree but we need to keep in mind that the CCWG cannot speak
> unilaterally for the community.  To the extent we move off the
> (substantial) portion of the draft proposal that has consensus support, and
> to the extent we introduce new solutions in those areas where consensus may
> not be fully formed, we must go back to the community.  The Board needs to
> understand and respect that.
>
>
>
> Thanks – we have also discussed this and agree.
>
>
>
> One approach I guess could be to put out specific sections that have
> substantial updates for comment.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150928/3fed3c4b/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list