Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update
Below again a spirited defence of the 'board' against the community by an ALAC leadership person..... All this is completely completely beyond me, I have no idea what is happening. For instance, I simply cant understand the meaning of things like "....I don't agree that the community is a much better proxy for the "public as a whole" than a Board that's selected entirely by the community...' And I think i know my politics and political science .... Something is happening here which is quite not clear... How can a board elected by a community be more politically legitimate than the community????? (whatever meaning you ascribe to 'community' here, at least it is a constant between its two usages in this sentence)... parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:44:11 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>, 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org Hello Paul, Hello all, for the record, I don't agree that the community is a much better proxy for the "public as a whole" than a Board that's selected entirely by the community or community representatives. This is akin to say that a self appointed community group is better suited to running a country than a democratically elected government. I've said it in the past and say it again: if you don't like the Board director that your community has selected, vote for someone else next time. But I'd like to also call on everyone here to stop the threats, the accusations, the hate - yes, there is actual hate in some of the comments - the complete FUD and full verbal assault of ICANN's structures and Board in the name of making ICANN more accountable. The more I read the allegations on the CCWG mailing list, the more I have doubts that this community is actually able to behave in a rational and measured fashion. So here's my question to everyone here: did you ever ask yourself why you have so little trust in people your community has voted for? This has been asked before and I have never heard a response that made sense. Kindest regards, Olivier On 25/11/2015 02:16, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Dear Bruce
I completely appreciate what you are trying to say here. And I completely disagree. The Board is running a corporation, to be sure -- but one that has at its core a responsibility for the management of a resource that is at the heart of economic growth, political freedom, etc. today. I respect the Board and want them to be engaged. But no group of individuals, however wise or thoughtful they may be, should have an independent power to define how this resource should be used. In the end, Milton is right (did I just say that???) the "community" is a much better proxy for the "public as a whole" than is the Board ... and the Board has to understand that. In fact, if I were to characterize this entire accountability process it would be that we are institutionalizing that insight ....
Regards Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 6:26 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update
Hello Milton,
you are subject to removal by designators through a process that involves x, y and z.... keep your community happy, or you might be on the receiving end of a recall.
That reminds me of two things.
The old school of keep your boss happy, and other than that you can do what you want. That leads to situations like the recent emissions scandal at a car company.
Keep the immediate community that elects you happy - with bread and circuses (an old roman approach). That leads to situations like some sporting organizations where as long as you keep the relevant officials that appoint/elect you happy with copious entertainment - you can do what you want.
At the board level we have been working on training and other initiatives to raise the standard for Board directors to act on behalf of the public as a whole (not just those that can attend an ICANN meeting and are directly involved in voting for or appointing directors) and also train Board directors in best practice of corporate governance.
So while I accept your proposal that we must "keep the community happy", I believe that is necessary but not sufficient. We must also continue to raise the standard of Board directors. I believe that was part of the recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Parminder, thanks for your follow-up on the matter. The concern with the "Community" being a much better proxy for the public as a whole is that there is no actual definition for the "Community". If the "Community" is effectively defined by who has the loudest voice, I'd be more inclined to trust it if there were checks and balances on the "community" for it not to be captured by, for example, commercial interests - perhaps the same checks and balances which we are recommending for the Board. ie. IRP, spilling of the Community committee, etc. Kindest regards, Olivier On 25/11/2015 17:35, parminder wrote:
Below again a spirited defence of the 'board' against the community by an ALAC leadership person..... All this is completely completely beyond me, I have no idea what is happening. For instance, I simply cant understand the meaning of things like
"....I don't agree that the community is a much better proxy for the "public as a whole" than a Board that's selected entirely by the community...'
And I think i know my politics and political science ....
Something is happening here which is quite not clear...
How can a board elected by a community be more politically legitimate than the community????? (whatever meaning you ascribe to 'community' here, at least it is a constant between its two usages in this sentence)...
parminder
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:44:11 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>, 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Hello Paul, Hello all,
for the record, I don't agree that the community is a much better proxy for the "public as a whole" than a Board that's selected entirely by the community or community representatives. This is akin to say that a self appointed community group is better suited to running a country than a democratically elected government.
I've said it in the past and say it again: if you don't like the Board director that your community has selected, vote for someone else next time.
But I'd like to also call on everyone here to stop the threats, the accusations, the hate - yes, there is actual hate in some of the comments - the complete FUD and full verbal assault of ICANN's structures and Board in the name of making ICANN more accountable. The more I read the allegations on the CCWG mailing list, the more I have doubts that this community is actually able to behave in a rational and measured fashion.
So here's my question to everyone here: did you ever ask yourself why you have so little trust in people your community has voted for? This has been asked before and I have never heard a response that made sense.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 25/11/2015 02:16, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Dear Bruce
I completely appreciate what you are trying to say here. And I completely disagree. The Board is running a corporation, to be sure -- but one that has at its core a responsibility for the management of a resource that is at the heart of economic growth, political freedom, etc. today. I respect the Board and want them to be engaged. But no group of individuals, however wise or thoughtful they may be, should have an independent power to define how this resource should be used. In the end, Milton is right (did I just say that???) the "community" is a much better proxy for the "public as a whole" than is the Board ... and the Board has to understand that. In fact, if I were to characterize this entire accountability process it would be that we are institutionalizing that insight ....
Regards Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 6:26 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Board discussions on the CCWG Update
Hello Milton,
you are subject to removal by designators through a process that involves x, y and z.... keep your community happy, or you might be on the receiving end of a recall.
That reminds me of two things.
The old school of keep your boss happy, and other than that you can do what you want. That leads to situations like the recent emissions scandal at a car company.
Keep the immediate community that elects you happy - with bread and circuses (an old roman approach). That leads to situations like some sporting organizations where as long as you keep the relevant officials that appoint/elect you happy with copious entertainment - you can do what you want.
At the board level we have been working on training and other initiatives to raise the standard for Board directors to act on behalf of the public as a whole (not just those that can attend an ICANN meeting and are directly involved in voting for or appointing directors) and also train Board directors in best practice of corporate governance.
So while I accept your proposal that we must "keep the community happy", I believe that is necessary but not sufficient. We must also continue to raise the standard of Board directors. I believe that was part of the recommendations from ATRT1 and ATRT2.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (2)
-
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
parminder