I certainly think we should take into account the Board's proposals.  We should consider each option they put forward (as we should with other comments).  We should consider how to clarify and fill in gaps and meet concerns.  We can do all that, and we will still be left with the nub of the problem.

The Membership of a US non-profit (here, a California Public Benefit Corporation) has a power relationship to the entity's Board that is unique (and uniquely powerful).  A designator can replicate that power level in connection with a narrow set of rights (relating to Board appointment and removal), but not regarding the rest.  There really is no analogue to the Single Member in the Board's model.  There's no compromise position between "member" and "not-member."  You can get close -- either by constraining the powers of the Member to deal with the concerns about the Member's powers, or by strengthening the powers granted to the Community in the bylaws and by protecting those strengthened powers from dilution or being shunted aside.  But you are still left with the hard nub of the question, which is whether the Community speak to the Board possessing the powers of a Member, or not.

Greg

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri
As long as we publish the third proposal contains a compromise between CMSM and MEM as modified by my preliminary suggestion( after refinement) I have no problem with your proposal. What I have difficulty with is the intolerable and conservative position of some colleagues that do not wish to take onto account the Board,s proposal.
Regards
Kavouss  

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Sep 2015, at 03:34, avri doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:

Hi,

I think slice and dice on the proposal would lose its internal coherence as a proposal. If we change anything substantive, I think the entire thing needs to go out for review.

I know I just agreed to a 'moratorium,' but I don't want to leave ideas sitting long enough for them to be called 'agreed upon.'

avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device


-------- Original message --------
From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Date:09/27/2015 7:49 PM (GMT-05:00)
Cc:
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin....

Hello Becky,

 

 

>>  I agree but we need to keep in mind that the CCWG cannot speak unilaterally for the community.  To the extent we move off the (substantial) portion of the draft proposal that has consensus support, and to the extent we introduce new solutions in those areas where consensus may not be fully formed, we must go back to the community.  The Board needs to understand and respect that.

 

Thanks – we have also discussed this and agree.

 

One approach I guess could be to put out specific sections that have substantial updates for comment.

 

Regards,

Bruce Tonkin

 

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community