[CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

[Mathieu Weill]

Hi Roelof, All,

I may be missing something but would kindly challenge your statement 
that the Board would not submit to such a proposal (force implementation 
of items they resist to). Please note that I provide the examples below 
only as illustrations and not as candidate mechanisms for our group.

First of all, it is routine governance in many organisations, including 
private corporations or not for profits (such as Afnic which I know 
well), that Boards operate under the authority of general assemblies, 
and therefore have to submit to decisions from another body. It is even 
often considered good practice (for some, but not all, decisions at 
least, such as bylaw changes or Board appointments).

Secondly, many corporate Boards willingly commit to governance codes of 
conduct all over the world that limit their authorities. One of the 
latest examples being the "say on pay" trend amongst listed companies 
whereby Board submit resolutions regarding executive compensation for 
approval to the general assemblies 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_on_pay). So in order to comply with 
stakeholder expectations, it is an established practice that Boards do 
limit their own "powers".

But once again, I may have misunderstood your point.

Best
Mathieu

Le 06/01/2015 16:17, Roelof Meijer a écrit :
> >mechanisms in WS1 adequate *to* force implementation of WS2 items *in 
> the event of* resistance from ICANN management and Board
>
> How can we reasonably expect the (ICANN) board to commit to such a 
> proposal (to force implementation of items that they do not agree to)? 
> It would do so blindly, not knowing beforehand what those items would 
> be. No sensible board would ever agree to this. And should not, as we 
> as a working group are not all-knowing. And we know that the chances 
> that the public comments on our proposals will show full consensus are 
> nil. And even if there was a full consensus in the public comments, we 
> know for sure that this does not equal public consensus.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roelof Meijer
>
> SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE 
> NETHERLANDS
> T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
> roelof.meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl 
> <http://www.sidn.nl/>
>
>
> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au 
> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
> Date: dinsdag 6 januari 2015 15:02
> To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" 
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals
>
> Works for me.
>
> *From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 6 January 2015 11:57 PM
> *To:* Bruce Tonkin
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals
>
> How about:
>
> All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are 
> mechanisms in WS1 adequate *to* force implementation of WS2 items *in 
> the event of* resistance from ICANN management and Board.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Bruce Tonkin 
> <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au 
> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
>
>     Hello All,
>
>
>     >>  WS 1 is designated for accountability mechanisms that must be
>     in place of rimly committed to before IANA transition occurs.
>     All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are
>     mechanisms in WS1 adequate for force implementation of WS2 items
>     despite resistance from Icann management and Board.
>
>     If possible I would like to see the last phrase read:  "in case of
>     resistance from ICANN Management and Board".   The current wording
>     seems to assume there is some sort of default resistance.
>
>     Regards,
>     Bruce Tonkin
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150106/b87944d0/attachment.html>