[CWG-Stewardship] Question re fiduciary duties and separation
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Wed Sep 2 15:27:30 UTC 2015
Hi,
Isn't this one of the times when the ability to remove Board members
becomes a practical solution: when their view of the fiduciary interests
runs in conflict to the the community's, if indeed it does. I thought
that is the whole reason for the mechanisms for escalation CCWG is
creating. And that is what makes those mechanisms, part of WS1 and
necessary for the transition.
avri
On 02-Sep-15 07:44, Jordan Carter wrote:
> Thanks all, for these comments.
>
> My question was on a very narrow point, around whether the ICANN Board
> would in fact be *able* to authorise a transfer as part of the
> escalation process towards a separation.
>
> I've seen Greg's reply as the nearest to a direct answer on that,
> which confirms no specific advice on the point but argues it will be
> possible.
>
> If that is where it stands, then I can consider myself informed -
> concerned, but informed.
>
> thanks,
> Jordan
>
>
> On 2 September 2015 at 08:00, Christopher Wilkinson
> <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
> wrote:
>
> Well, Avri, precisely. As I pointed out some time ago, should
> matters ever reach such a pass that separation would be invoked,
> then the machinery proposed would not be fit for purpose.
> Other measures, external to ICANN, IANA and this Community would
> have intervened long before.
>
> Indeed, if all that CWG has achieved, in this respect, is to
> create some kind of moral hazard hanging over ICANN, then the last
> eighteen months work has been disproportionate.
>
> CW
>
>
>
> On 01 Sep 2015, at 18:45, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Look at how long it took for the NTIA to have a rebid. And there is
> > nothing in the separation function that prohibits doing a bid at
> a point
> > in the process. In fact it is quite specific about a bid and the
> > possibility the the current PTO could bid again.
> >
> > My hope though, is that just the act of getting the machinery
> cranked
> > up, would be enough of a threat to cause ICANN to try to fix any
> > problem. But if it didn't, I predict it would take about as
> long as it
> > took the NTIA, with its call for comments on how to do it &c.
> We also
> > have to take into account the reactions and actions from Numbers and
> > Protocols at the time of any separation preparation - that would
> take
> > some time. I think the reference solution strikes the balance
> between
> > changing over too easily and not being able to change over at all.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 31-Aug-15 22:17, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan
> Carter
> >>
> >> I keep coming back to the status quo. At the moment, the USG can
> >> reassign the functions. We need to be careful that, given there
> is a
> >> principle of separability, it isn't rendered inoperable by the
> CWG's
> >> proposal through this matter.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Frankly, I think the current proposal comes very close to rendering
> >> separability inoperable. While separation is theoretically
> possible,
> >> it suffers from the absence of the basic notion of competitive
> >> bidding. As one journalist (Kieren McCarthy) put it, “There are no
> >> less than 10 steps that have to go through seven different
> committees.
> >> Two of those committees have to be specially created and the
> process
> >> requires super majority votes from the two main supporting
> >> organizations not once but twice.” The process is essentially
> >> designed to avoid change and keep it in PTI/ICANN’s hands in
> all but
> >> the most exceptional circumstances – and in most of the exceptional
> >> circumstances one could imagine a process this slow and complex
> would
> >> be practically useless. The basic idea of a renewable contract has
> >> been buried by a mound of steaming….committees and reviews. The CWG
> >> lost sight of the basic question they should have been answering,
> >> which is: “how can we keep the contractor honest and the process of
> >> RZF editing maximally efficient by making the possibility of
> the IFO’s
> >> replacement real?”
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My two cents
> >>
> >> --MM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
>
> /A better world through a better Internet /
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list