[lac-discuss-en] R: [IANA-issues] Fwd: Re: CCWG Statement v07 as requested.

Wed Sep 9 20:16:54 UTC 2015

I have a question.

In case a Director is removed by some mechanism, can the appointing body
re-appoint him/her?

-          If no, does this not looks as a prevarication of the rights of
one appointing body (SO or AC or NomCom) by the majority of other appointing
bodies? i.e. does this not imply that each and every appointing body have to
appoint people that are not disliked by the majority of other bodies? Does
not this sound *really* bad?

-          If yes, does this not look *really* useless, because at the end
of the day the appointing body is the only one who has the power of
removing, regardless what the other appointing bodies think about?

In either case, the removal clause “as is” does not look really useful.

To me personally – but I acknowledge the fact that being out of tune I am
not fit for singing in a choir – it looks seriously silly.

Cheers,

R.

Da: iana-issues-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:iana-issues-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di CW Mail
Inviato: sabato 5 settembre 2015 21:01
A: Alan Greenberg
Cc: IANA Issues; lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Oggetto: Re: [IANA-issues] Fwd: Re: CCWG Statement v07 as requested.

Alan, Carlton:

1. Regarding the removal of Directors, (a) SOs and ACs _appointed_ their
Directors in the first place. So, who is responsible for the Directors that
they have got?

(b) NomCom appoints _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 SO can initiate (even threaten to initiate) removal, what hope for
the internal checks and balances?

2.       Regarding Competition and other Regulatory matters, I read
somewhere in section 3 that competition would rely on market mechanisms.
That is ludicrous in this market.

The whole point of regulatory responsibilities for competition is to address
issues which are NOT resolved by market mechanisms, and there ARE some.

Of course there are other regulatory issues that ICANN has failed to address
recently. e.g. .XYZ, .SUCKS, .VIN etc.)

Regards

CW

PS:     I find it increasingly difficult to handle the volume of all this
stuff. How to cross reference the CWG report, the CCWG report 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 SOs in the event of GAC
contrary advice. I believe that to be deliberate. 

                      I note that several GAC members have already perceived
that game being played behind their backs.

On 05 Sep 2015, at 19:17, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:

Language really does matter. 

So, I agree with most of the edits. But I so too 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 differences
with elements that the ALAC seems to be endorsing.

Regarding Para 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 organisational
principles. For Luddites and fellow travelers are forever with us and they
tend to dumb down on principles.

Regarding Para 199, again, let's rubbish this exercise in sophistry.  Sweet
bleeding Christ, what chutzpah!  The writer here actually says that
decisions about the DNS have ALWAYS and must remain 'neutral and judgment
free'!.  In what universe? Call it what it is, a squalid lie.

Para 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 really wants to remain
care-free from what happens in  the market it created, that it imposes
obligations for to all of us, sustains in many ways yet 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, this is where I differ philosophically from the
trending ALAC position. However, you might wish to revisit this business of
having directors lockboxing 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 U.S laws, libel, slander and defamation are not
the same in law as say the UK or even Jamaica. But certainly 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 cannot 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 there
does not suppose they be lapdogs.

Finally, while I generally support Sebastien's Minority Statement, his
alternative proposal to removal of only 7 members of the Board during a
given year is also 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 natural justice to which each director
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 so I
would reject that on principle.

It is far better to have a framework with a third of the Board is subject to
natural renewal at a frequency less than the natural appointment duration of
each board member - say every 2 years - than invoke a process that might
actually take more years to complete.

Best,

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alan Greenberg <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.

Alan

Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:30:27 +0200
Subject: Re: CCWG Statement v07 as requested.
From: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com>
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>

Thanks Alan,
Please find attached the V7-Clean with my comments, questions, proposals
and changes.
If you have any questionS
All the best
Sébastien Bachollet
+33 6 07 66 89 33 <tel:%2B33%206%2007%2066%2089%2033> 
Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com>

Le 04/09/2015 18:54, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a écrit
:

>

_______________________________________________
Iana-issues mailing list
Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues

<ALAC-Comment-v07-clean_sbt with further comments by Carlton Sep
5.docx>_______________________________________________
Iana-issues mailing list
Iana-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20150909/e9d5c944/attachment-0001.html>