<<<
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.
--karl--
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|