[CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure

[Roelof Meijer]

It is even doubtful that shareholders would be (ethically or not) in pursuit of accountability in general or of being accountable themselves.
My guess would be that many of them would be in pursuit of (long or short term) profits on the shares they hold…

Cheers,

Roelof

From: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>>
Date: woensdag 28 januari 2015 00:49
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org<mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure


No nuance missing Jonathan. :)
Likening to shareholders reminded me that shareholders are not always ethical in their pursuit of accountability.
RD

On Jan 27, 2015 6:58 PM, "Jonathan Zuck" <JZuck at actonline.org<mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>> wrote:
>
> Hmmm. I guess “we” is the community that have reached a fairly solid consensus that new accountability mechanisms need to be put in place at ICANN. And the role “we” seek them to play is exactly what EBW outlined below as aspirational. The issue is structural reform that empowers the community to hold the board of ICANN accountable going forward. Likening it to “shareholder” accountability is not about turning ICANN into a commercial organization, merely addressing concerns surrounding liability. What nuance am I missing here?
>
>
>
> From: Rudolph Daniel [mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:55 PM
> To: Jonathan Zuck
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community; Eric Brunner-Williams
> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure
>
>
>
> Not sure I get who 'we' is and  'seek them to play'  ?
> RD
>
> On Jan 27, 2015 6:44 PM, "Jonathan Zuck" <JZuck at actonline.org<mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Agree but the point of accountability mechanisms is to ensure the board continues to play the role we seek them to play.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:38 PM
>> To: Eric Brunner-Williams
>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure
>>
>>
>>
>> I would think, and  certainly it has been suggested elsewhere that public accountably be less of the shareholder kind and more of the ethical variety.
>> RD
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2015 3:04 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net<mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I would not like to see the Board's duty as stewards of the public trust -- exercising reasonable care, inquisitive,  ... the strictest standard of duty of care in American law -- reduced to the pursuit of quarterly profits maximization prevalent in for-profit Boards.
>>>>
>>>> ICANN’s Board of Directors would become accountable to the community, in much the same way that the Boards of publicly-traded companies are ultimately accountable to their shareholders.
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest our standards are, by initial design, higher than the likeness proposed.
>>>
>>> Eric Brunner-Williams
>>> Eugene, Oregon
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150128/ee90c0f2/attachment.html>