Hi, I am in complete agreement. I hope we can find solutions that make adversarial interactions as improbable as possible. avri On 11-Oct-15 16:13, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Avri I am not in favour of adversarial act.'if we do every thing on consensus basis,and achieve our objectives why we gigot with Board? Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Oct 2015, at 21:38, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 11-Oct-15 15:22, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Not sure I get why you awarded accolades to SM in this instance, Isn't collaboration(doing things cooperatively) based on set of guidelines possible in any model including SM? Court is always there at the end of the day. I just think that a model built on cooperation and consensus (a non voting SM) is less likely to end up in court than a model that starts with adversarial behavior - arbitration and mediation.
A well formed SM model builds on a combination, a hand-fasting, of the Board's fiduciary roles and responsibilities with the Community's roles and responsibility to represent the interests of the public as best they can though the bylaws processes and outreach. They both check each other and both can be appealed to the IRP when they go off the rails.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus