<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Malcolm</div><div>Thank you very muc.</div><div>You have described indeed. the very difficulty that we all have before us.</div><div>Every one of us doing her or his utmost effort to the best of her or his knowledge. All these efforts are higly appreciated .</div><div>Logic language is differnt from criticising language . We are need to be objectives. We should continuje to put hands in hand and defend the interest of the community by which we are tasked to prepare the mechanism that works and implementable and receives the consensus of everybody including the Board.</div><div>We should not consider the board as a confronting entity we should understand their problems and difficulties and they should iuunderstands our dutuies, tanks and mandate</div><div>We must work together but not against each other</div><div>Robin has been a valuable assest of the community and contuned to be so.</div><div>She has considerably contributed to the process and every one of us acjknowledge that .</div><div>She is a comptent, knowlegeableand respectful lady</div><div>We certainly will be benefitted of her positive and constructive advice</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-10-09 17:38 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span><br>
<br>
> On 9 Oct 2015, at 16:58, Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> May we logically and validly accept or reject a point rather than accusing people<br>
<br>
</span>I certainly agree Kavouss, and in the same the same tone of respect, would not characterise Robin's comment as an accusation. That the Board find themselves in a conflict is simply a fact, we are discussing what we should do to improve their accountability (or, more properly, the accountability of the organisation they control). They find themselves required to contribute to this process as stakeholders, as members of the community (and particularly respected ones at that) but also as the guardians under a fiduciary duty to defend the corporation in its current form - a form that we are proposing should be changed. This is the very definition of a conflict of interest. To note it casts no aspersions on the integrity or honour of the Board; they did not invite it or bring it about (except by allowing this CCWG process to be instituted, for which we should thank them) but it remains an inescapable fact of the circumstances of this discussion. And clearly it is a relevant fact as we consider their submission to our Public Comment.<br>
<br>
The Board are defending the corporation diligently, as their fiduciary duty requires them to do. This places them in opposition to a proposal that would change the corporation, and their duty is, for now, only and exclusively to defend that corporation. If the Single Member Model goes through the meaning of their fiduciary duty will change. They will still have to defend the corporation, but rather than for its own sake for the sake of the community the corporation serves, as embodied in the Member.<br>
<br>
I am sure that from that moment forth they will defend ICANN-with-Member every bit as diligently as they now defend the Memberless corporation.<br>
<br>
I do not think it besmirches the honour of Board members in any way to note this situation, or the conflict of interest it creates, nor do I think a proper respect and courtesy compels us to be blind to it.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Malcolm.<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>