On 05-Feb-15 12:48, Roelof Meijer wrote:

Avri, Seun,

Entering into one of the issues that at least Ì have with the existing situation (without the intention of accusing anybody):

Avri writes: "If their idea of what is good for ICANN is radically different from the (s)electors then they should be removed”.

I think you are suggesting that the selectors selected the board member purely for the good of ICANN (the corporation).

I submit that it sometimes happens that what is good for a particular constituency plays a role in the selection of a board member and that it is thus possible that there is not always full alignment between the interests of a particular constituency and those of the corporation.

The good of the corporation, which given its mission, is the good of the Internet. Part of being a multistakeholder organization is that all ACSOs have different views on what the good is. That is why we (s)elect from the various ACSO and the larger community (nomcom).

What I argue is that the Board can only serve the actual interests of the corporation and its mission when its Board represents the diversity of ICANN's interests. If a Board member goes against the interests of the (s)electors then the corporation cannot serve its mission justly. If a Board member cannot explain why she has done what she has done adequately to those (s)electors that she should be subject to removal. I agree with Seun, it should not be an easy or trivial process, but it should be possible.

So it is not a given that a board member who does no longer agree with his/her selectors, has the worser idea of what is good for ICANN, and should be removed by the selectors…

Nonetheless, if she can't convince the (s)elector that she is doing the right thing, then a vote of no confidence and removal is appropriate.

I am not making a value judgement on which opinion is normatively the best for the corporation but rather making the claim that the best for the corporation cannot be achieved if all viewpoints are not properly represented on the Board.

This also does not take into account the Board member who is just not doing his job. The Board members are our paid employees, there is no reason they should have a paid sinecure until the next (s)election if they are not performing. That to me is part of accountability.

BTW: I think this goes for councils &c. as well (though they are unpaid for their work because it is not as important as Board work), it is just that this is not the subject at hand.

avri

Cheers,

Roelof