[CWG-Stewardship] [CWG-RFP3] CCWG California Law Response

[Milton L Mueller]

You two are not really disagreeing. Steve is telling us what the obligations of board members currently are. Kieren is saying "it might be possible to" change that with new accountability arrangements that allowed recall of board members by their community.

Either way, this debate is more appropriate for the CCWG; I don't see its relevance to the IANA transition task of this list.

From: cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2015 8:50 PM
To: Kieren McCarthy
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org; RFP3
Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] [CWG-Stewardship] CCWG California Law Response

Kieren,

On Feb 10, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com<mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>> wrote:


It should also be possible to get rid of smaller numbers of board members seeing as most are supposed to be representative of a particular community.

This is exactly wrong.  Board members are obligated to do what's best for the entire community, not just their particular consistency.  They bring the perspective of their constituency as part of their background and knowledge, but they are not supposed to be the representative of their constituency in the sense of a congress or parliament.

You might argue we should change the role of the Board or create a different body, but the idea that specific Board members are responsible the outcome relevant to their body is contrary to the actual obligation currently in force.

Steve


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150210/8a1bfecf/attachment-0001.html>