[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 4 - power to remove Individual Board director - 1st reading conclusions

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Fri Jan 8 14:02:42 UTC 2016


Irrespective of nativespeakerness, WHY does the rule exist?

It appears to provide the Board a technical reason to invalidate a 
removal if they can argue that the reasons stated are not comprehensive 
enough (or even 'fulsome').

With respect, this is arrant nonsense and a rearguard action.

Simply setting out objective criteria for a removal is both sufficient 
and desirable.

Such as "there must be a majority vote of those entitled to vote".

Or is anyone REALLY suggesting that a campaign to remove a Board 
director could success in mustering the necessary level of support (on 
whatever critierion is set) WITHOUT making the argument for it? Risible!



On 08/01/16 13:56, Mathieu Weill wrote:
> Distinguished colleagues,
>
> I am not a native English speaker, but reading this thread, I have the
> impression that “comprehensive and written rationale” might address the
> concern raised by Alan, while avoiding the (unexpressed) concern that
> the rationale would be an empty declaration, within which the “real”
> arguments would actually not be found ?
>
> Best,
>
> Mathieu
>
> *De :*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *De la part
> de* Greg Shatan
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 7 janvier 2016 22:26
> *À :* Steve Crocker
> *Cc :* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 4 - power to remove Individual
> Board director - 1st reading conclusions
>
> Speaking of pedants, the late, great William Safire wrote about this
> (albeit not fulsomely) a few years ago:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/magazine/22wwln-safire-t.html?_r=0
>
> The "Grammarphobia Blog" has also weighed in:
> http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2014/11/fulsome.html
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com
> <mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm merely a pedant-in-passing, so I'll offer this response but not
> engage further.
>
> I suspect you were taught as I was that "fulsome" was a strongly
> negative term despite its seemingly positive composition.  Over the last
> few decades, its usage has shifted, and I now see it used in a positive
> sense.  I think it's become genuinely ambiguous, like "biannual," and I
> avoid using it myself.  But it's not a big deal because the intended
> meaning is usually clear from the context.  For reference see
>
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fulsome
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2016, at 4:08 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>
>     As pedant-in-residence, I object to the word 'fulsome' in any event.
>
>     "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
>     means".
>
>
>
>
>
>     complimentary or flattering to an excessive degree.
>
>         "they are almost embarrassingly fulsome in their appreciation"
>
>         synonyms:    excessive, extravagant, overdone, immoderate,
>         inordinate, over-appreciative, flattering, adulatory, fawning,
>         unctuous, ingratiating, cloying, saccharine; enthusiastic,
>         effusive, rapturous, glowing, gushing, profuse, generous, lavish;
>
>         informalover the top, smarmy
>
>
>
>     adj.
>
>         1. Excessively flattering or insincerely earnest. See Synonyms
>         at unctuous.
>
>         2. Disgusting or offensive: "With the stink of decaying corpses
>         so near her cave ... suddenly she felt overpowered by the
>         fulsome reek" (Jean Auel).
>
>         3. Usage Problem Copious or abundant.
>
>         [Middle English fulsom, abundant, well-fed, arousing disgust :
>         ful, full; see FULL1 + -som, adj. suff.; see -SOME1.]
>
>         fulsome·ly adv.
>
>         fulsome·ness n.
>
>         Usage Note: The original meaning of fulsome was "copious,
>         abundant." But fulsome is now most often used of remarks that
>         involve excessive praise or ingratiating flattery, as in Their
>         fulsome compliments were viewed as an awkward attempt at winning
>         approval. This narrower application of the word has become its
>         sole meaning for many educated speakers, to the point where a
>         large majority of the Usage Panel disapproves of the use of
>         fulsome to mean simply "full" or "copious." In our 2012 survey,
>         only 19 percent accepted the use of fulsome as a synonym of full
>         in the sentence You can adjust the TV's audio settings for a
>         more fulsome bass in movie soundtracks. Use of the word as a
>         synonym of copious or expansive found only slightly more
>         takers—21 percent accepted The final report will furnish a more
>         detailed and fulsome discussion of the issues involved. The use
>         of fulsome as a simple synonym of praising without a clear
>         indication of inordinacy or insincerity split the Panel n!
>
>     early dow
>     n
>     the middle, with 55 percent accepting the example The research
>     director claimed that the product was a major advance that would
>     improve Web access for everyone, and the marketing VP was equally
>     fulsome in her remarks. Thus it may be best to avoid fulsome except
>     where the context unambiguously conveys the idea that the praise in
>     question is excessive or fawning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     On 01/06/2016 10:51 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
>     I have a concern and resultant question (directed at any Directors who
>
>         choose to reply) regarding the phrase "A petition must be
>         supported by a
>
>         fulsome and written rationale stating the reasons why removal is
>         sought."
>
>         Let me create a scenario. Directors are chosen by an SO or
>         At-Large not
>
>         because they will "represent" the appointing body, but (among other
>
>         reasons) because there is a general belief that the candidate
>         espouses
>
>         beliefs and standards similar to those held by those who are
>         selecting
>
>         the Board member. This is a VERY subjective decision, and not
>         one that
>
>         is particularly provable.
>
>         If, as time unfolds, those involved with the appointing body
>
>         overwhelmingly come to feel that the judgement was either
>         incorrect, or
>
>         more pointedly, if it were to be made again, the candidate would
>         NOT be
>
>         selected, would expressing this satisfy the "fulsome rationale"?
>
>         Alan
>
>         At 06/01/2016 09:02 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>
>             Dear Colleagues,
>
>             Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations
>             during
>
>             call #74. The updated document is attached.
>
>             a.            to mitigate risk of litigation in case of
>             Board removal,
>
>             pre-service letters for Board members could be required (see
>             paragraph
>
>             39 page 9)
>
>             b.            a written rationale will be offered very early
>             in the
>
>             process
>
>             c. Lawyers are tasked to provide adequate language to
>             provide adequate
>
>             direction for implementation.
>
>             POST MEETING NOTE :
>
>             This version includes edits to incorporate comments from the
>             Icann
>
>             Board (section 3c – page 12 of the Icann Board comment) that
>             were not
>
>             included in the previous version (thanks to Kavouss for
>             drawing our
>
>             attention to this). Each of these comments were considered
>             as useful
>
>             directions for implementation. (see paragraphs 41 and 48)
>
>             2^nd reading is planned during next Tuesday’s call.
>
>             Best,
>
>             --
>
>             *****************************
>
>             Mathieu WEILL
>
>             AFNIC - directeur général
>
>             Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006>
>
>             mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>             <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>
>             Twitter : @mathieuweill
>
>             *****************************
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             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
>         <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
>     <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
> <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
>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list