ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] At Large Board Seat

  • To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] At Large Board Seat
  • From: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:52:30 -0700

On 09/15/2009 08:09 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

here are the relevant Board meeting minutes:

b.Voting Director Appointed from the At Large

The Board received an update from Staff regarding the Board review
Working Group recommendation for the inclusion of a voting director
appointed from the At Large. The Board discussed some potential
implementation hurdles that must be resolved, though recognized that
approving of the recommendation in principle would then allow for the
planning of the implementation.

Which is slightly at odds with the fact that we (the "Working Group") recommended *two* voting seats not a singular "a voting director".

Although I don't remember the exact words we used, our intent was that the "at large" mean the broad community of internet users, not merely the ALAC, and that the mechanism of choice be something in which the members of that larger community have have, in some cumulative way yet to be designed, to pick and choose the people to be seated.

In my own mind it seems to me that we opened the door to the ALAC to make a definite and detailed proposal of how that may work. I have been disappointed, but unfortunately, not surprised, to see nothing. In this absence "staff" has been handed a blank sheet of paper on which it can expand in any and all directions.

The ALAC still has time, but not much time, to draw some faint containment lines on that sheet.

In our working group I felt that this issue needed a broader field, that the question of publicly seated directors needed to address, or to my mind "redress", the nominating committee system, the question whether the President should have an automatic voting seat on the board (I've always felt that that was a very wrong choice), elimination of the misconceived ombudsman, a requirement to re-enact (or not) decisions of the past (such as the UDRP) so that the public directors can finally have a voice in the decision, etc.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>