Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization
ICANN's experience with picking noncom's is pretty telling. The one that
picked the candidates for the at-large last time was a stacked groups with
no one at all from the 'loyal opposition'. Not surprisingly they only
picked candidates friendly to management. And got pasted in both
N.America and Europe.
The NomCom for the IPR was selected in a manner that produced a group
unable or unwilling (by design?) to discharge its duties. No one has yet
appologized for this or even tried to explain it.
The Lynn plan is a non-starter for a large number of reasons, not least
mission gallop (also reflected in the Touton memo). But one of the
reasons it is hard to take it seriously is the failure to describe a
noncom procedure that is visibly fair, and not likely to be captured by
The IETF uses a nomcom that is randomly selected from members who attend
meetings and volunteer. Since ICANN has driven away so many of its
members, and since meetings are rare and in expensive locations, physical
attendence cannot be an element of selection for the nomcom. But nor can
the staff be allowed to have the power to stack the deck, as they have
amply demonstrated they are not able to discharge this function in a
competent manner. Who then?
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, vint cerf wrote:
> At 11:50 PM 3/17/2002 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >At 20:26 17/03/02, vint cerf wrote:
> >>the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
> >>on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
> >>among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.
> >>The idea is to find the best candidates filling a variety of
> >>criteria - geographic dispersion, board experience, Internet
> >>awareness, fund raising ability, appreciation for the wide
> >>range of interests and opinions among the Internet's constituents,
> >These candidates are supposed to represent every area of the globe in proportion of 300.000.000 people each,
> we know it is impossible to have direct representation for 500M users of the Internet. Similarly it is
> impossible to directly represent every country in the world. The board is supposed to be composed of
> people who can think about the needs of the Internet and its users, providers, etc as members of a
> team: the board of trustees of ICANN. Every director is in fact responsible to ICANN to do the best
> he or she can to think about the Internet as a whole in making policy determinations for ICANN.
> >Don't you think that selecting every three years 6 @large directors will be as much complex and costly as choosing every 12 years an UN General Secretary?
> Assuming staggered terms the selection process would be annual wouldn't it?
> >>Looking at various funding possibilities including endowments as adjunct or alternative.
> >Why not just a cost based upon the rendered services - if any - with a cross subsidization among the TLDs charging their users and the ones not charging them?
> this is certainly an approach worth pursuing with the various funding constituencies.
> >When will we see the ICANN rates?
> when the proposed budget emerges probably at or before Bucharest.
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | firstname.lastname@example.org
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--
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