hi,_______________________________________________
I think that is a good idea.
I see one as a vote of no-confidence while I see the other as a mainly a vehicle for non or ill performance.
avri
On 10-Feb-15 09:56, Jordan Carter wrote:
For the information of CWG members, Working Party 1 of the Accountability CCWG (dealing with community empowerment) will be considering the removal both of individual board members and of the entire Board as part of its work.
JTC
On 10 February 2015 at 09:50, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org> wrote:
Kieren,
On Feb 10, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
It should also be possible to get rid of smaller numbers of board members seeing as most are supposed to be representative of a particular community.
This is exactly wrong. Board members are obligated to do what’s best for the entire community, not just their particular consistency. They bring the perspective of their constituency as part of their background and knowledge, but they are not supposed to be the representative of their constituency in the sense of a congress or parliament.
You might argue we should change the role of the Board or create a different body, but the idea that specific Board members are responsible the outcome relevant to their body is contrary to the actual obligation currently in force.
Steve
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive
InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
_______________________________________________ Cwg-rfp3 mailing list Cwg-rfp3@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship