<html>
<body>
Roberto, as I understand the proposal, there is no prohibition about a
removed director being immediately re-appointed to the same seat or any
other seat. Of course, it would make little sense for an SO/AC to remove
their director and immediately reappoint the same person. But they could
be reappointed by another SO/AC or the NomCom.<br><br>
For removal of the entire Board, the proposal explicitly and clearly says
that there is no prohibition regarding a particular director being
re-appointed. I do not see a problem with this. In particular, an
individual SO/AC my not have supported the recall, and may want their
directors back.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 09/09/2015 04:16 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I have a question.<br>
In case a Director is removed by some mechanism, can the appointing body
re-appoint him/her?<br>
- 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
*<b>really</b>* bad?<br>
- If yes, does this
not look *<b>really</b>* 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?<br>
In either case, the removal clause “as is” does not look really
useful.<br>
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.<br>
Cheers,<br>
R.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Da:</b> iana-issues-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:iana-issues-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:iana-issues-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>] <b>Per conto di
</b>CW Mail<br>
<b>Inviato:</b> sabato 5 settembre 2015 21:01<br>
<b>A:</b> Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> IANA Issues; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<br>
<b>Oggetto:</b> Re: [IANA-issues] Fwd: Re: CCWG Statement v07 as
requested.<br>
<br>
Alan, Carlton:<br>
<br>
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?<br>
(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.<br>
If any SO can initiate (even threaten to initiate) removal, what hope for
the internal checks and balances?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
The whole point of regulatory responsibilities for competition is to
address issues which are NOT resolved by market mechanisms, and there ARE
some.<br>
<br>
Of course there are other regulatory issues that ICANN has failed to
address recently. e.g. .XYZ, .SUCKS, .VIN etc.)<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
CW<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
I note that several GAC members have already perceived that game being
played behind their backs.<br>
<br>
On 05 Sep 2015, at 19:17, Carlton Samuels
<<a href="mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com">
carlton.samuels@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>
<br>
Language really does matter. <br>
<br>
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 <b>Section 3: Principles. </b>And then, I also have
philosophical differences with elements that the ALAC seems to be
endorsing.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
-Carlton<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
==============================<br>
Carlton A Samuels<br>
Mobile: 876-818-1799<br>
<i>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</i><br>
=============================<br>
<br>
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
Sebastien has sent in the following comments. If anyone has any
support or concerns, please let us know, preferably on the wiki.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:30:27 +0200<br>
Subject: Re: CCWG Statement v07 as requested.<br>
From: Sébastien Bachollet
<<a href="mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com">sebastien@bachollet.com</a>
><br>
To: Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
><br><br>
<br>
Thanks Alan,<br>
Please find attached the V7-Clean with my comments, questions,
proposals<br>
and changes.<br>
If you have any questionS<br>
All the best<br>
Sébastien Bachollet<br>
<a href="tel:%2B33%206%2007%2066%2089%2033">+33 6 07 66 89 33</a><br>
Blog:
<a href="http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/">
http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/</a><br>
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet
<<a href="mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com">sebastien@bachollet.com</a>
><br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
Le 04/09/2015 18:54, « Alan Greenberg »
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> a écrit<br>
:<br><br>
><br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Iana-issues mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues</a><br>
<br>
<ALAC-Comment-v07-clean_sbt with further comments by Carlton Sep
5.docx>_______________________________________________<br>
Iana-issues mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues</a><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>