Hi Nigel,

I don't think we should conclude that way, i think we should maintain an open mind, ask questions and with the appropriate response try re-evaluate the proposal. I for instance like the idea that the MEM has the opportunity to say that "we are happy with board's decision not to follow the recommendation of the IRP" My question however is what happens when the MEM says "we support the IRP's verdict and like the board to implement it"?

Regards

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

Becky is on the money, as is nearly often most always the case.

Shouldn't we just conclude that MEM is fatally flawed, and (at best) is the result of muddled thinking by its proponents, say so clearly, so we can get on with something productive, like, oh, I don't know, counting sheep?

On 18/09/15 15:57, Burr, Becky wrote:

Furthermore, and more worrisome to me is what the MEM does to the
fundamental concept of an independent judiciary.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!