<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Ombudsman Blog
- To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Ombudsman Blog
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:55:06 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=MhROVfTZqI9OBzqmqeMex5r3ttMHvoXDB6j0XnO8Zws88p5wjtmTDxuD9oucjwJfNTm6Eve5HrN8vQOnS5y5UDAzDFfNR00btt9LBNYfj2uAV9ux2ATKHkAt7LOZDHYk3nEzWOIQY0yChmgg/sIX5cIsRhNuHY5oWobG0yvARJE= ;
- In-reply-to: <45D2393B.3010802@cavebear.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Doesn't this really beg the first question? While in a few instances it would be good to have an active BoD, in general though isn't it better that they remain dormant? Sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for. Kind of like poking a sleeping cavebear with a stick.
Eric
Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
> ... they are being told by the Ombudsman "Sorry,
> that's not my job".
And don't forget that the coin with which we paid for the "ombudsman" was the
loss of publicly elected members to the ICANN board of directors.
A real director, one who takes his/her job seriously, understands that part of
his/her obligation is to inquire into how the corporation is behaving and to
consider whether corrective action is needed.
And unlike a hireling ombudsman, a Director has statutory rights to make such
inquiries - as ICANN learned in court when they tried to deny a Director's
statutory rights.
--karl--
---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|