| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Why Did ICANN Do It?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 24 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Perhaps someone can help me out here. I distinctly recall one BoD member (possibly the departed Philip Davidson) being quoted in the press a few months ago regarding this that he had signed the agreement and seen the records. Ah yes, here we go. Philip Davidson, who was one of the Audit Committee members, actually its Chair, that denied Karl access (I've submitted an article to ICANNWatch regarding that that hasn't appeared), was quoted in an ICANN announcement last March 19: I cannot understand for the life of me why Karl would object to affirming his willingness to keep these records confidential, I followed the procedures myself and had full access to all of the records with no hindrance whatsoever. So are we to take it from that that he never actually used that access? I find it extremely hard to believe that no BoD member, particularily those serving on the Finance Committee, ever accessed the records. Presumably they do get to see some records if the staff and outside interests allow it. Note also that the announcement spins it that the Audit Committee is made up of three independent Directors. Independent of what? They seem to be incapable of independent thought. If if is true that the BoD has never actually accessed the records then the BoD is even more of a rubber stamp for the staff and outside interests than it normally appears to be. How can anything these people say or decide (former Chair Esther Dyson for example) be taken seriously if they never managed to get into that level of detail? Scary. There's discussion over at slashdot, and Karl tells Reuters that he will look for records that showed conflicts of interest, improper expenditures, or evidence of other misconduct. Why did no other BoD member ever do this? Because they thought they knew what they would find, or because they didn't want to know? -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re: More Questions Than Answers
by fnord
|
|
|
|
|
"Why did no other BoD member ever do this? Because they thought they knew what they would find, or because they didn't want to know?"
ICANN testified that: "Directors are entitled to rely on the work of outside consultants." - sorry, pulled this directly from Bret Fausett's log rather than official court records, but this source is good enough for me and I think answers what any future defense may consist of presuming, of course, anything of such would be necessary (which is today a large presumpton to make).
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
