Makes a lot of sense and this is actually one of the reasons why I was concerned with individual SO/AC removing their board Reps; it will be in the interest of the entire community/stability to see that an SO/AC made a tough decision to remove its board member(and the tough should be evident in the process). That said, the "alter ego" setup is still quite unclear especially as we use the NRO/ASO setup as an example(I assume you mean NRO-NC/ASO). My understanding is that none of those 2 are legal entities. Why can't the SO/AC just be empowered directly through the bylaw. Is this a California law limitation? Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 30 Apr 2015 02:06, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all,
On 30 April 2015 at 12:44, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
León,
Thanks!
I appreciate that each SO/AC could set its own controls over its ‘alter ego’ and so the question would be more how will any control mechanisms be enforced.
However, I imagine that it may also be important to each SO/AC to ensure that their fellow SOs and ACs have robust control mechanisms in place.
I strongly agree with this. I think there should be common requirements across the SOs/ACs so we don't end up with a hodge podge or low standards for exercising some of these powers.
What do others think?
J
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community