[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment

[Mike Silber]

Alain

> On 6 Jul 2016, at 14:50, ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> , I have a major problem with consultation outside of the member base and including the wider community in what is a commercial discussion between the company and the members.  
> 
> Community = “members" + "potential members”
> 
> Every year, AFRINIC get about 133 of the “potential members” to become “members”. So fees discussions is of interest for everyone.
> 
I tend to agree with you. However I think that we must acknowledge that we cannot limit community to “potential members” only. I also think that the views of end users (corporate and individual) should be considered.

However the Board is accountable to the organisation and its members, so community views can and should be considered but cannot prevail if they are not aligned with member views. Hopefully the community (which includes members) can sway members to their view.

> 
>> I’m even very much on the fence about making the fees subject to a negotiation like this, because at the end of the day there is a fiduciary duty on the directors to ensure that the company is sustainable.  If the directors have to raise fees to do that, and the community disagrees with the fee increases, this creates a legally untenable situation. 
>> 
> 
> What if instead of “community”, “members” disagree  in your case? Community knows  the BoD fiduciary responsibility and care for the organisation, so that together, they should decide  what is good for the organisation and fair for the community. 

I think Andrew is incorrect in characterising this as a “negotiation”. It is a process of influencing the organisation. If we change the context - I think Andrew’s objection falls away.
> 
> But why a such community fear from a Director of a community-driven organisation ?
> 
But why the ad hominem comment?

>> 
> 
> 
> While this is a reality, it must be changed and all RIRs going through this accountability assessment  must acknowledge that  less that 10% deciding  on matters for a community-driven organisation is bad and effort must made to improve this by having more active members. Chase the dormant members, activate them or close them? 
> 
> Voting is possible by presence, by proxy  and online….
> 
No problem encouraging participation - however, given the rights associated with membership, termination will amount to an expropriation and is not acceptable unless for breach of terms.

Mike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160706/9791caf7/attachment.html>