On Jun 20, 2008, at 7:54 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The NomComm, like the people it selects, are accountable to nothing but an abstract notion of what is "good for ICANN".
This is, in fact, the very guide that everyone uses when assuming an official role within an organization, profit or non-profit. Officers and Directors have a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the corporation. I suppose I'm having difficulty understanding what different accountability mechanism you are recommending, because from my perspective, everyone in an official ICANN position, from your position as NARALO Chair all the way to the CEO and Chairman of the Board, has an obligation to act for the "good of ICANN." That obligation necessarily trumps any other obligation to any other body, including one's employer, constituency, or ALS. That said, we can, and should in a healthy ICANN, have differing views about what is "good for ICANN." Bret