Robin,

That's an amazingly important point. Indeed, it is the arguably the essence of our reasons for picking a member model.

Could it be that this change in the power dynamic is what the Board (or their counsel) is worrying about?

On Thursday, September 24, 2015, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Indeed California corporations explicitly provides for Members without worrying about directors' fiduciary duties.  Since the corporations code is explicitly set up this way, it is odd that ICANN board and lawyers argue that somehow there is a problem.  This is what Cal. corp. law was set up to do.  If the California legislature doesn't worry about fiduciary duties of members / directors in a membership org, why are some this group pre-occupied with it?

Thanks,
Robin


On Sep 24, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:

I was sad to see the selective quote, which could see people thinking I think that a membership model ends fiduciary duties on board members, or that membership isn't the right approach. I don't think either of those things for the record.

J

On 25 September 2015 at 12:38, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
All,

Forwarded at the request of John Poole who cannot post to the list.


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




--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: 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