Re: Don't screw up our ICANN (was RE: [ga] RE: issues that are long closed?)
Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote: When mentioning the words "member" and "ICANN" in the same context it is worthwhile to revive and review the document that originally put "the fear of being held accountable" into ICANN: http://www.icann.org/santiago/membership-analysis.htm To my mind the things noted in that document that ICANN so feared, most particularly derivative lawsuits, are actually well grounded and historically sound mechanisms to improve corporate transparency and accountability. It was amusing how ICANN tried to use Humpty Dumpty's logic to evade the obligations of these California laws by labeling what were clearly elections in year 2000 as a "selection". (By-the-way, I wouldn't lump individual members of the internet community, not all of whom own domain names, in with "Civil Society" under the list of stakeholders. Individuals act equally through governments, businesses they own (virtually all large corporations are ultimately owned by individual people), non-profits, etc, etc. Moreover your analysis did not include an item regarding the intended beneficiaries of ICANN's existence: the users of the internet. Those beneficiaries don't seem to be getting a seat at the ICANN table. Second by-the-way, I'm not necessarily in favor of a recall provision of elected directors (it's not that I'm against, its just that I haven't really thought about it that much) - so the furthest I've gone so far would be to say that if an elected director does spend 3 years on the beach, that he/she might find it hard to be re-elected. --karl--
|