Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"
At 9:20 AM -0600 3/18/02, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>vint cerf wrote:
>> 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 question whether that was, indeed, the intent behind the current structure.
>Instead, I "understood" that the reason for (s)electing directors
>stakeholder groups or segments of the community was (as in most
>to assure all interests a seat at the table. As with "beauty," the
>of the community are in the eyes of the beholders.
Eric is correct. In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998, there
was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names,
protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three
other seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at
large, which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt
But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors
bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and
the facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected
parts of the Internet?" Having representation from the experts was,
in Jon's view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening
the oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a
consensus based organization representing all relevant interests.
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