I have a question.
In case a Director is removed by some mechanism,
can the appointing body re-appoint him/her?
- If no, does this not looks as a
prevarication of the rights of one appointing
body (SO or AC or NomCom) by the majority of
other appointing bodies? i.e. does this not
imply that each and every appointing body have
to appoint people that are not disliked by the
majority of other bodies? Does not this sound *really* bad?
- If yes, does this not look *really*
useless, because at the end of the day the
appointing body is the only one who has the
power of removing, regardless what the other appointing bodies think about?
In either case, the removal clause ?as is? does not look really useful.
To me personally ? but I acknowledge the fact
that being out of tune I am not fit for singing
in a choir ? it looks seriously silly.
Cheers,
R.
Da: iana-issues-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:iana-issues-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Per conto di CW Mail
Inviato: sabato 5 settembre 2015 21:01
A: Alan Greenberg
Cc: IANA Issues; lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Oggetto: Re: [IANA-issues] Fwd: Re: CCWG Statement v07 as requested.
Alan, Carlton:
1. Regarding the removal of Directors, (a) SOs
and ACs _appointed_ their Directors in the first
place. So, who is responsible for the Directors that they have got?
(b) NomCom appoints _independent_ Directors. My
comments on this have already been posted. The
whole point of having independent Directors is
to create a check and balance in the Board.
If any SO can initiate (even threaten to
initiate) removal, what hope for the internal checks and balances?
2. Regarding Competition and other
Regulatory matters, I read somewhere in section
3 that competition would rely on market
mechanisms. That is ludicrous in this market.
The whole point of regulatory responsibilities
for competition is to address issues which are
NOT resolved by market mechanisms, and there ARE some.
Of course there are other regulatory issues that
ICANN has failed to address recently. e.g. .XYZ, .SUCKS, .VIN etc.)
Regards
CW
PS: I find it increasingly difficult to
handle the volume of all this stuff. How to
cross reference the CWG report, the CCWG report
the At Large report, the Board and Jones Day. Impossible.
PPS: I read the Sidley proposals for
Fundamental Bylaws. Those would make it
impossible for the Board to demur from the SOs
in the event of GAC contrary advice. I believe that to be deliberate.
I note that several GAC
members have already perceived that game being played behind their backs.
On 05 Sep 2015, at 19:17, Carlton Samuels
<<mailto:carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Language really does matter.
So, I agree with most of the edits. But I so too
would have liked to see more forceful language
use in the ALAC's responses, especially in
regard to the Section 3: Principles. And then,
I also have philosophical differences with
elements that the ALAC seems to be endorsing.
Regarding Para 154 et. al., we should be bold
and write the language we would have liked to
see. I have learned from experience that you
must always take care to write your own self
explicitly in organisational principles. For
Luddites and fellow travelers are forever with
us and they tend to dumb down on principles.
Regarding Para 199, again, let's rubbish this
exercise in sophistry. Sweet bleeding Christ,
what chutzpah! The writer here actually says
that decisions about the DNS have ALWAYS and
must remain 'neutral and judgment free'!. In
what universe? Call it what it is, a squalid lie.
Para 218 again is a deviant operation lurking in
plain sight, party to a neo-liberal political
economy that enables a standing bit of ICANN tom
foolery; ICANN is not a regulator. Its like the
cuckoo; lay your eggs in some other poor bird's
nest and let 'em feed and groom your big ass
chick, they dumb enough not to recognize a
bastard. ICANN really wants to remain care-free
from what happens in the market it created,
that it imposes obligations for to all of us,
sustains in many ways yet wishes to remove
itself from the duty of care from the aftermath.
This position must be rejected for cause.
As it relates to Section 7, this is where I
differ philosophically from the trending ALAC
position. However, you might wish to revisit
this business of having directors lockboxing
certain rights in lieu of appointment.
We still have the law - and the case law - of
the State of California to contend with. Now,
for a corporate entity domiciled in California
and subject to California and U.S laws, libel,
slander and defamation are not the same in law
as say the UK or even Jamaica. But certainly the
question of how much of 'coercive' you can get
done before you impinge on a constitutional
right is now live. The thing is one cannot sign
away a constitutional right, even if you're
ignorant. Plus we are still a long way away
from figuring out what is the makeup of
'statutory and fiduciary responsibilities'
imposed by California law on directors. The law
there does not suppose they be lapdogs.
Finally, while I generally support Sebastien's
Minority Statement, his alternative proposal to
removal of only 7 members of the Board during a
given year is also not much more desirable.
Quite apart from the prospect of reducing
directors to lapdogs, I do not think you can
edit out the tenets of natural justice to which
each director is born much less to coerce one to
give up one's constitutional rights in lieu of a
Board seat. There is something malodorous about
that concept so I would reject that on principle.
It is far better to have a framework with a
third of the Board is subject to natural renewal
at a frequency less than the natural appointment
duration of each board member - say every 2
years - than invoke a process that might actually take more years to complete.
Best,
-Carlton
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sebastien has sent in the following
comments. If anyone has any support or
concerns, please let us know, preferably on the wiki.
Alan
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:30:27 +0200
Subject: Re: CCWG Statement v07 as requested.
From: Sébastien Bachollet
<<mailto:sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks Alan,
Please find attached the V7-Clean with my comments, questions, proposals
and changes.
If you have any questionS
All the best
Sébastien Bachollet
<tel:%2B33%206%2007%2066%2089%2033>+33 6 07 66 89 33
Blog: <http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/>http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet
<<mailto:sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Le 04/09/2015 18:54, « Alan Greenberg »
<<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit
:
>
_______________________________________________
Iana-issues mailing list
<mailto:Iana-issues@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Iana-issues@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
<ALAC-Comment-v07-clean_sbt with further
comments by Carlton Sep 5.docx>_______________________________________________
Iana-issues mailing list
<mailto:Iana-issues@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Iana-issues@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues