[ga] Re: Restructuring Proposal
In response to the Restructuring Proposal that I submitted, Jefsey has posed
The first question concerns categories of entitities that are not directly
represented at the Board level, such as telcos, media, religious
organizations, financial institutions, etc. At issue is which groups are
deemed major stakeholders in the ICANN process currently, and what
"evolutionary" provisions have been made to accomodate emerging stakeholder
As an organization, we have committed to abiding by certain principles noted
in the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce...
one such principle (representation) states in part: "These mechanisms will
promote the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the composition of the
Internet user community and their needs."
Jefsey is correct in noting that one deficiency in my proposal is that the
Director selection process is static rather than dynamic. There is a manner
by which this problem may be corrected.
We are all aware that the composition of any given constituent group changes
over the course of time as does the total number of members on its roster.
ICANN has previously accepted the notion that certain threshold requirements
must be met for any constituent entity that seeks recognition. Carrying that
logic forward, it may also be held that a constituent group must maintain a
certain quantity of members lest it become disaccreditted and lose the right
to elect representatives to the Board.
I note that ISOC (as but one example) has decommissioned a number of its
chapters (in that those groups have failed to maintain their numbers at a
certain level). Those decommissioned chapters do lose certain privileges.
The same principle may be applied to ICANN constituencies that seek to have
representation on the Board. If a hypothetical threshold level of 50
members was established as a bare minimum, then it is certainly possible that
our current ISP constituency (among others) might not qualify as a group
entitled to seat a Director. The possibility of "vacancies" would allow for
other currently non-recognized organizations to petition for recognition.
This "petition-for-recognition mechanism" creates a challenge process whereby
emerging stakeholders groups may vie with established groups for
representation on the Board. Obviously, certain safeguards will need to be
established. In Accra, Alejandro Pisanty pointed to a problem in certain
Latin American communities during election cycles -- uninformed voters were
rounded up from the countryside and trucked to the voting box by political
groups intent on victory at all costs. We need to be able to feel
comfortable that constituencies seeking Board level representation haven't
resorted to practices which have the effect of "stuffing their membership
roles" just to meet threshold criteria.
Should a given constituent group lose a "challenge" and be replaced by
another constituency, this will not terminate their involvement in the ICANN
process (as they will continue to function and may still communicate with the
Board by way of the Ombudsman that has been established as a liaison to
organizations that seek to address the Board).
I look forward to further discussion on how we may best structure a flexible
mechanism that equitably allows emerging stakeholder groups to join ICANN and
be accorded proper representation, and would like to thank Jefsey for raising
I will respond to Jefsey's second comment in a subsequent post.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html