<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05-Feb-15 12:48, Roelof Meijer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D0F906B9.E0C1%25roelof.meijer@sidn.nl"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=Windows-1252">
<div>
<div>
<div>Avri, Seun,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Entering into one of the issues that at least Ě have with
the existing situation (without the intention of accusing
anybody):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Avri writes: "If their idea of what is good for ICANN is
radically different from the (s)electors then they should be
removed”.</div>
<div>I think you are suggesting that the selectors selected
the board member purely for the good of ICANN (the
corporation). </div>
<div>I submit that it sometimes happens that what is good for
a particular constituency plays a role in the selection of a
board member and that it is thus possible that there is not
always full alignment between the interests of a particular
constituency and those of the corporation. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The good of the corporation, which given its mission, is the good of
the Internet. Part of being a multistakeholder organization is that
all ACSOs have different views on what the good is. That is why we
(s)elect from the various ACSO and the larger community (nomcom).<br>
<br>
What I argue is that the Board can only serve the actual interests
of the corporation and its mission when its Board represents the
diversity of ICANN's interests. If a Board member goes against the
interests of the (s)electors then the corporation cannot serve its
mission justly. If a Board member cannot explain why she has done
what she has done adequately to those (s)electors that she should be
subject to removal. I agree with Seun, it should not be an easy or
trivial process, but it should be possible.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:D0F906B9.E0C1%25roelof.meijer@sidn.nl"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>So it is not a given that a board member who does no
longer agree with his/her selectors, has the worser idea of
what is good for ICANN, and should be removed by the
selectors…</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nonetheless, if she can't convince the (s)elector that she is doing
the right thing, then a vote of no confidence and removal is
appropriate.<br>
<br>
I am not making a value judgement on which opinion is normatively
the best for the corporation but rather making the claim that the
best for the corporation cannot be achieved if all viewpoints are
not properly represented on the Board.<br>
<br>
This also does not take into account the Board member who is just
not doing his job. The Board members are our paid employees, there
is no reason they should have a paid sinecure until the next
(s)election if they are not performing. That to me is part of
accountability.<br>
<br>
BTW: I think this goes for councils &c. as well (though they are
unpaid for their work because it is not as important as Board work),
it is just that this is not the subject at hand.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:D0F906B9.E0C1%25roelof.meijer@sidn.nl"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Roelof</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"></span><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>