RE: [ga] At Large Board Seat
- To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx, "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] At Large Board Seat
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:40:38 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Roberto and all,
Can you make the case why and Board member should be "Appointed"?
>From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sep 26, 2009 4:17 PM
>To: karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 'Danny Younger' <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: 'GA' <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: [ga] At Large Board Seat
>Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> > 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".
>We are talking about two different WGs. The matter was further discussed by
>the Board Review WG, where there was a report from the BCG on the table
>recommending the reduction of the size of the Board. The only possible
>mediation among the different positions (no AtLarge voting seat, two AtLarge
>voting seats, reduction of the size of the Board, ensure a majority of the
>NomCom appointees over the SO/AC appointees) was to keep the size as is,
>convert the ALAC Liaison into a voting position, maintain the number of
>NomCom appointees. This was the compromise solution found, and as all
>compromise solutions has the merit of having something for everybody, but
>the problem of not giving anybody the full extent of their requests.
>> 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.
>The clear message from the Board Review WG, received by the Board, is that
>ALAC has to come with a proposal, that has to be accepted by the Board. I
>personally do not think that the process will be very fast, as I expect
>consultation via the RALOs with the local communities, and this might take
>months. Again, on a personal level, I believe that it would make sense to
>have a proposal discussed and approved in early 2010, targeting a seating at
>the 2010 AGM at the very latest. If it comes earlier, so much the better.
>> 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.
>There are a lot of issues where no decision is possible as of today. My
>choice, as chair of that WG, has been to postpone the incomplete or
>controversial items to Review V.2, but to close on the items where a
>consensus on a compromise proposal could be reached. This has allowed the
>declaration of principle on an ALAC voting seat, and more items for Board
>decision in the next few weeks, as well as a public discussion on the
>finalized report in Seoul.
>After that, my successor will take over, and I sincerely hope that he/she
>can push the review further, but at least we have in Seoul some milestones
>(Knowing, of course, that for some this will be anyway too little and too
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx