Fwd: Re: Declaración CCWG V07 lo solicitado.

Lun Sep 7 01:05:10 UTC 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]

 Asunto: Re: Fwd: Re: Declaración CCWG V07 lo solicitado. 
 De: carlton.samuels en gmail.com

 Christopher: 
 Para el # 1, esto es lo que estamos trabajando. Gobierno corporativo actual 
 doctrina - y la presunción en lo que se denomina 'legal y fiduciaria 
 responsabilidades 'es que una vez elegidos y sentados, un director descarta ninguna 
 obligación de su tribu o grupo y retiene ninguna lealtad a la 
 envío / seleccionar organización. 

 Sus / sus obligaciones y lealtad son ahora exclusivamente a la ICANN, la corporación. 

 Tú y yo podría pensar que se trata del envío / organización que la selección 
 deben ser responsables de la mala semilla y ser el principal en cualquier limpieza. 
 Pero si usted sigue la lógica de la doctrina actual, verá cómo 
 podría llegar a la posición de que cualquiera de las clases de interesados \u200b\u200btienen ahora 
 legitimación para solicitar la eliminación. 

 En cuanto a la cuestión de los directores &quot;independientes&quot;, que depende de lo que usted piensa 
 medios independientes en este contexto.Tal vez una mirada más de cerca como el requisito 
 y los perfiles sugeridos de los directores NomCom elegido es posible que tenga 
 otra toma en la misma. 

 Tomo su # 2 como dado. 

 -Carlton 

 ============================== 
 Carlton Un Samuels 
 Móvil: 876-818-1799 
 * Estrategia, Planeación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * 
 ============================= 

 El Sábado, 05 de septiembre 2015 a las 2:01 de la tarde, CW correo <mail en christopherwilkinson.eu>
 escribió: 

> 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 en 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 en 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: SÃ©bastien Bachollet <sebastien en bachollet.com>
>>> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg en 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
>>> SÃ©bastien Bachollet
>>> +33 6 07 66 89 33
>>> Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
>>> Mail: SÃ©bastien Bachollet <sebastien en bachollet.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 04/09/2015 18:54, Â« Alan Greenberg Â» <alan.greenberg en mcgill.ca> a
>>> Ã©crit
>>> :
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-issues mailing list
>> Iana-issues en 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 en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
>

[[--Original text (en)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2d6e45861b.html
--]]