Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization
you may well be right that this won't work - which is one reason we have
asked the GAC to respond with its own ideas. The going-in proposal was
that countries would have to reach consensus within regions as to a
candidate for that region. Keep in mind that the intent of naming a
director is NOT to "represent" a particular point of view but to serve
all of ICANN and the Internet Community to the best of his/her ability.
I do not, for example, believe that the at-large elected directors have
a different role or responsibility than those appointed by ASO or PSO.
Each director is responsible for all of the ICANN activities and has
fiduciary responsibility for all Internet's constituents.
At 07:35 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
>Vint, I would suggest a much different model for the governments. Giving
>(some) governments a direct role in choosing (some) of the directors will
>blur issues such as the legal authority of the entity and its accountability
>to the public, and raises a number of concerns over the future of freedom on
>the Interent, in a world where repressive governments have a claim for
>representation. What are you going to tell China? You can't serve? If
>the issue is funding for ICANN, then it may be more appropriate to think
>about a multinational contract model. Right now there is a contract with
>one government, the USA. Perhaps if other governments want to fund ICANN,
>and want to participate more directly, they could negotiate a joint
>contract. With a contract model there can at least be some clarity with
>respect to the limits of ICANN's authority and mission. Jamie
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html