Final authority to hold the board to account is essentially what we are talking about. That's what I mean when I say 'control'. I do not - and nobody has suggested - replacing the Board's job as the governing body for ICANN as it is today.

Jordan

On Thursday, 21 May 2015, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:

Steve,

<snip>

I see the proposed community membership structure simply as a check on the power of the Board, nothing more. It’s not about “controlling” or replacing the Board. The Board has its legitimate function, but its decisions cannot be unchallengeable. The community must have the ability to tell the Board it got a decision wrong and to enforce the will of the multi-stakeholder community in rare/limited instances and based on a very high threshold of community agreement/consensus.

I would certainly trust the proposed community members, representing their SOs and ACs, to be balanced, inclusive and trustworthy in protecting the interests of the overall community -- in their role as the aforementioned check on the powers of the Board. Not as a replacement.