Well, not intentionally.​

​I believe this to be untrue.

In most ​jurisdictions in which I have been involved in the creation of nonprofits, the kind of member-less, mostly-unaccountable-Board that is the cornerstone of ICANN's present structure could not exist.

While there can be much arguing and gnashing of teeth over the definition and classes of members, the assorted anti-capture mechanisms allowed and so on, in most places there still must be some concept of members that elect Board members (and in many circumstances have the ability to recall them before end-of-term).

In most other nonprofits in most other places where one exists, a Nominating Committee does exactly that -- nominate a slate that must be elected or ratified by some greater body. It is this body -- not the Board itself or the NomComm -- that determines the fiduciary duty and the good to be served. In ICANN the selections of the Nominating Committee are not ratified by any higher body, so they are accountable to nobody once placed. Their own fiduciary duty need be no more than the sum of their best guess and what ICANN legal tells them.

​I had never encountered the ability of a nonprofit to unilaterally shed itself of Board oversight by its members until ICANN. This is most certainly not a globally-empowered capability.

Given the diverse nature of At-Large perhaps there are others here who can confirm or disprove my observations.