[CCWG-ACCT] Proposal for a Community Veto Process on Key Board Decisions via Bylaws Amendment

[Avri Doria]

On 05-Feb-15 12:48, Roelof Meijer wrote:
> Avri, Seun,
>
> Entering into one of the issues that at least Ì have with the existing
> situation (without the intention of accusing anybody):
>
> Avri writes: "If their idea of what is good for ICANN is radically
> different from the (s)electors then they should be removed”.
> I think you are suggesting that the selectors selected the board
> member purely for the good of ICANN (the corporation). 
> 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.

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).

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.

> 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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

avri

>
> Cheers,
>
> Roelof
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150205/f05d4da3/attachment.html>