<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Greg,<br>
<br>
points taken and I am glad that in point 1 you clearly spell out
that we are not edging towards a for-profit model.<br>
As for your second point, I'll be the first one to admit that whilst
there have been bad examples of corporate corruption in the US, this
has also been the same in other countries. I'll even go as far as
admitting that in the US, culprits have ended up in jail whilst in,
say France, they've just moved to another state company after being
fined & had a slap on their fingers. Corruption in other
countries is not unheard of either, of course. So let's concentrate
more on using accountability principles for the special non-profit
animal that ICANN is rather than using classic shareholder
accountability principles that you and I know can be circumvented as
has been shown time and time again. Why didn't we look for good
principles and best practices in other global non-profit orgs? Why
don't we think about enhancing accountability using ICANN's seed
accountability processes? We are? Then I do not know why we are so
intent on saying otherwise. Is the grass really greener on the other
side of the fence?<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/01/2015 22:24, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURCrmKO-WgAkTmzU1r=K4_Db6a_r+OEk9DwmwRqOC=Jfg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Olivier:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Two points.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. I don't think anyone (myself included) is suggesting a
shareholder model per se. Indeed, a US non-profit generally
cannot have shareholders. The "membership" model comes
squarely out of the non-profit world. The commonality between
the two is that the Board in each instance can be made
accountable to that body in a way that no other body can
possess. The references to shareholders are merely an
analogy, and reading any leaning toward a for profit model is
entirely a mis-reading.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. As to whether US corporate accountability is "seriously
dented" outside the US, I don't know (though it seems rather
overheated to me). However, I think you are again reading too
much into things. The examples given would work just about as
well with French corporations or Japanese corporations or
Australian corporations. It would be ludicrous and extremely
unhelpful to say that we have nothing to learn from US
corporate governance or the governance of "for profit"
corporations generally, or that we must ignore all the work in
that area. We can't be so allergic on principle to these
things, and I doubt that most of us are.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(I would also note that that in David Conrad's "parade of
horribles," there were companies from Japan, India, Italy and
the Dominican Republic in addition to the US, so making this a
US issue is both unfair and inaccurate.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Greg</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:44 PM,
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ocl@gih.com"
target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Greg,<br>
<br>
thanks for your kind message. A follow-up below:<br>
<span class=""><br>
On 20/01/2015 20:30, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> ICANN is (for better or worse) virtually unique.
Most companies do<br>
> not have an organized "community" of "stakeholders"
around them, like<br>
> ICANN. Most companies are not acting as policy and
governance<br>
> "ecosystems," like ICANN. In many ways, this
uniqueness is a good<br>
> thing, but it gives us unique challenges. While we
can borrow heavily<br>
> from the "playbooks" of existing non-profits and
private companies<br>
> (whether publicly-traded or not), their solutions
will need to be<br>
> customized (more or less) to suit our situation.<br>
<br>
</span>You are absolutely right, ICANN is virtually unique.
I therefore am very<br>
concerned that some suggestions are that it loses this
uniqueness and<br>
ends up working on a for profit corporate model of
shareholders. It's<br>
not that I am against share ownership - I am a shareholder
of many US<br>
corporations - but the idea of accountability based on US
corporation<br>
accountability is seriously dented outside the United
States. Again it's<br>
a perception thing and I know it's not perceived in the US
but most of<br>
the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. I have
concerns that we<br>
are, once again, going to be accused of replacing US
government<br>
accountability with US corporate interest accountability and
that will<br>
do nothing for the legitimacy of our proposed solution.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>