[CCWG-ACCT] The Board standards topic

[Jordan Carter]

Hi all

This email teases out what seems to be three separate options for what the
WS2 item on Board standards means, to see if others are clearer or share my
view that a number of topics are on the table.


When we (ages ago, early in WS1) were discussing the removal of Board
members community power, there was agreement - from memory in Dublin - that
it would be helpful to generate some community norms for Board members.
Let's refer to this as Option 1 for now.

This was seen as having two benefits that I can remember being discussed -
that Board members would have some insight into what the community was
looking for beyond the procedural "rules" of Board membership, and removal
processes by the community would be guided by such norms (since,
presumably, they would be embedded in the community's views of what it
needed from the Board - not for procedural reasons).

A few weeks ago a discussion suggested that this topic might be going in a
different direction - perhaps Option 2 - creating standards against which a
Board removal decision might be objectively judged (i.e. creating criteria
for removal). That was rebutted at the time - the CCWG never agreed to that.

Today a different interpretation - Option 3!? - has emerged on the call
just now - from Annex 4 para 54 of the final Proposal, the fourth bullet
point:

"Guidelines for standards of conduct that will be presumed to be in good
faith (for example, conducting reasonable due diligence as to the
truthfulness of a statement) will be developed in Work Stream 2."

I confess I had not read or noticed the implications of this text in
previous readings of the draft. It appears the topic noted here is to
create standards for COMMUNITY members not for Board members, relating to
indemnity.


It may be useful to clarify this through discussion on list before
Helsinki.


>From my point of view Option 1 remains important and useful for the
community to express some views that will help inform current and future
Board members or candidates for the same about some things the community
wants to see, beyond what can/should be written in bylaws or rules language.

Option 3 seems to be required too but is not the same thing.

I'd be strongly opposed to Option 2 coming back on the agenda.


Look forward to your thoughts!

Jordan



-- 
Jordan Carter
Wellington, New Zealand

+64 21 442 649
jordan at jordancarter.org.nz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160621/52220e5a/attachment.html>