[lac-discuss-en] FW: Fwd: Re: v07 CCWG Statement as requested.
apisan at unam.mx
apisan at unam.mx
Sat Sep 5 22:09:55 UTC 2015
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: FW: Fwd: Re: v07 CCWG Statement as requested.
From: apisan at unam.mx
aquhay a sample of some of the discussions on the transition in the supervision of IANA. In it we see expressions of a member of LACRALO and oposicina them. Serve information.
NB It is possible that TRANSLATION defaced text, full of innuendo and diffuse disqualifications, which gently and accurately relates Mr. Wilkinson in his response.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM Faculty of Chemistry
3000 University Avenue,. 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+ 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
SMS FROM MEXICO +525541444475 +525541444475
UNAM Join the LinkedIn group, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From: lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of CW Mail [mail at christopherwilkinson.eu]
Posted on: saturday, September 5, 2015 14:01
To: Alan Greenberg
CC: IANA Issues; lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Re: v07 CCWG Statement as requested.
1. Regarding the removal of Directors, (a) Their SOs and ACs _appointed_ Directors in the first place. I so, WHO is responsible for the Directors That They have got?
(B) Appoints NomCom _independent_ Directors. My comments on this Have Already Been posted.The whole point of Having Independent Directors is to create a check and balance in the Board.
If any OS can initiate (even Threaten to initiate) removal, what hope for the internal checks and balances?
2. Regarding Regulatory Competition and other matters, I read somewhere in section 3 That would rely on market competition Mechanisms. That is ludicrous In This Market.
The whole point of regulatory Responsibilities for competition Which is to address issues are resolved by market NOT Mechanisms, and there ARE some.
Of course there are other regulatory issues That ICANN has failed to address Recently. .XYZ eg, .SUCKS, .VIN etc.)
PS: I find it increasingly difficult to handle the volume of all this stuff. How to cross reference the CWG report, the report CCWG the At Large report, the Board and Jones Day. Impossible.
PPS: I read the Sidley Proposals for Fundamental Bylaws. Those would make it impossible for the Board to demur from the OS in the event of GAC Contrary advice. That I believe to be deliberate.
I note That Have Already several GAC members perceived That game being played behind Their backs.
On 05 Sep 2015, at 19:17, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com> > Wrote:
Language really does matter.
So, I agree with most of it the edits. But so too I would have liked to see more forceful language use in the ALAC's responses, Especially in regard to the Section 3: Principles. And Then, I Also have philosophical elements Differences With the ALAC That Seems to be endorsing.
Regarding To 154 et. al., We Should Be bold and write the language we would have liked to see. I have Learned from experience that you 'must always take care to write your own self Explicitly in organizational principles. For Luddites and fellow travelers are forever with us and They Tend to dumb down on principles.
Regarding to 199, again, let's rubbish esta exercise in sophistry. Sweet bleeding Christ, what chutzpah! The writer here whos That says decisions about the DNS unavailable and must ALWAYS REMAIN 'neutral and judgment free' !. In what universe? Call it what it is, a squalid lie.
For 218 again is a deviant operation lurking in plain sight, party to a neo-liberal political economy That Enables a standing bit of ICANN tom foolery; ICANN is not a regulator. Its like the cuckoo; lay your eggs in some other poor bird's nest and let 'em feed and groom your big ass chick, They dumb enough not to Recognize a bastard. ICANN Wants To Remain really care-free from what happens in the market it created, That it imposes Obligations for to all of us, in many ways yet sustains wishes to remove itself from the duty of care from the aftermath. This position must be rejected for cause.
As it Relates to Section 7 Where I Differ this is philosophically from the ALAC position trending. However, You Might wish to revisit esta business of directors lockboxing Having Certain rights in lieu of appointment.
We Still Have the law - and the case law - of the State of California to contend with. Now, for a corporate entity domiciled in California and subject to California and US laws, libel, slander and defamation are not the same in law as the UK or even say Jamaica. Certainly But the question of how much of 'coercive' you can get done before you impinge on a constitutional right is now live.The thing is one can not sign away a constitutional right, even if you're ignorant. Plus we are still a long way away from figuring out what is the makeup of 'statutory and fiduciary Responsibilities' imposed by California law on directors. The law does not suppose there They be lapdogs.
Finally, while I generally support Sebastien's Minority Statement, His alternative proposal to removal of only seven members of the Board During Also GIVEN year is not much more desirable.
Quite apart from the prospect of Reducing directors to lapdogs, I do not think you can edit out the tenets of justice to Which naturally each manager is born much less to coerce one to give up one's constitutional rights in lieu of a Board seat. There is something malodorous About That concept That so I would reject on principle.
It is far better To have a framework with a third of the Board is naturally subject to renewal at a frequency less than the appointment naturally duration of each board member - say every 2 years - than invoke a process That Might Actually take more years to complete .
Carlton A Samuels
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
On Fri, Sep 4 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > Wrote:
Sebastien has sent in the following comments. If anyone has any support or Concerns, please let us know, preferably on the wiki.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:30:27 +0200
Subject: Re: v07 CCWG Statement as requested.
From: Sbastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com<mailto:sebastien at bachollet.com> >
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >
Please find attached the V7-Clean with my comments, questions, Proposals
If You Have Any Questions
All the best
+33 6 07 66 89 33 <tel:%2B33%206%2007%2066%2089%2033>
Mail: Sbastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com<mailto:sebastien at bachollet.com> >
Le 04/09/2015 18:54, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > To crit
[[--Original text (es)
More information about the lac-discuss-en