<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Ed, et. al.,<br>
<br>
I may have this completely backward (as per my comments on google
docs) but I thought (may be wrong) that it made sense to give the
Board the latitude to direct committees (existing or ad hoc?) to
tend to particular Board business while keeping the Accountability
out of those tasks, so it can function as a watchdog committee.
The way it now reads (even with the existing suggested wording
change) the Accountability Committee is asking to also be a sled
dog (doing the work pulling the load) which (again, am I wrong
here) compromise its integrity as the Accountability Committee. <br>
<br>
Caught between a fog, and (literally) rising lake waters here.<br>
<br>
Sam <br>
<br>
On 5/5/2017 4:14 PM, Edward Morris wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:47ec9b9fe7c846a79d9e60a27f6e23a3@toast.net"
type="cite"><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans
Unicode','Lucida Grande',Sans-Serif; font-size: 14px">
<div>As is usually the case on actual policy, I’m in complete
agreement with Milton here. I don’t agree with this comment.<br>
<br>
One of the problems I see throughout ICANN, including within
our groups, is the willingness to ignore rules and
proscriptions when as a practical matter it might make sense
in a narrow way to do so. This leads to the rules themselves
being mere suggestions, the rule of law giving way to the rule
of man.<br>
<br>
ICANN is still a pretty fragile institution. Yet we see in
this proposal and also, I would argue, in the proposal to
allow the CCNSO to delay their accountability review, initial
attempts to bypass the requirements set up in the new Bylaws
designed for increased accountability. Taken individually each
one might make some sense. Collectively, though, if we keep
suggesting that “heck, we’ll bypass it here, change it here,
give a ‘get out of jail’ card here” the entire accountability
framework could be jeopardized.<br>
<br>
I’m sure if we could do it over again, we would draft the
Reconsideration portion of the Bylaws a bit differently. I
know as I work on the CEP, flexibility is the principle I’m
hoping our subgroup and the CCWG will bake into the final
product. The thing is, in the case of Reconsideration we
didn’t. As a result, the Board needs to jump through the hoops
and yell at the proper time, per the Bylaws, to get this done.
It’s not so much about the proposal, per se, as the precedent
set by not making them do so. It would be abad one.<br>
<br>
Ed</div>
<div> </div>
<div style="-webkit-touch-callout: none; -webkit-user-select:
none; -khtml-user-select: none;-moz-user-select:
none;-ms-user-select: none;-o-user-select: none;user-select:
none;"> </div>
</span>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco
blog: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com">https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a>
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852</pre>
</body>
</html>