Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1176
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 10 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1176

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 18:15:01 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] reform proposal

At 06:08 PM 5/9/2002 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Kristy and all assembly members,
>
>Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> > Folks, if we are really considering this proposal, why don't we start by
> > listing all the processes we want to change or list what we want?  How will
> > the decision makers know who to choose if we don't communicate what we 
> want?
>
>   GOod suggestion Kristy.  But I believe that we as GA members either
>individually or as small subgroups as well as in conjunction with other
>interested parties/stakeholders/users, have done this many times already...
<snip>

Yes, however we have not ever worked as a group and put together a proposal 
as such... I think a more formal approach would be better received.

:)

~k

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 21:08:08 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSGOVERNMENTAL

If you're stupid enough to STILL be using on your Windoze machine I would
recommend you don't run the attachment start.exe that Peter's machine just
sent out, because I suspect it's a virus.

Peter, time to dump MS Outlook Express and get a more secure email client.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 22:19:05 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Behaviour and rights

> But a vote changes the people in place in the government, not the type of
> government itself.
> You vote every 4 years or so to replace the people in
> congress/senate/chamber/government/whatever_your_local_reality_is, not if
> the shape of the
> congress/senate/chamber/government/whatever_your_local_reality_is
> has to be
> changed. The latter can be done, of course, but it implies rewriting the
> rules of the game and it happens at much wider intervals.
> And in fact people on the ICANN Board are subject to change (with the
> notable exception of the 4 Boardsquatters, that most of us agree is a
> shame).

I disagree that Board squatters are a "notable exception", they are
indicative of the whole problem. ICANN lies. There is corruption at the
highest level of the organization. Since a government election changes only
the individuals who administer the system, and it is the system that has
allowed the problem to manifest itself, then it is not so simple as
replacing those who run ICANN. The sad fact is that those who have been
privileged to uphold the public interest, have not only abused their
position and dropped the ball, even worse, they have maneuvered themselves
into a position that allows the rules to be changed at will to suit their
own self interested ends at the expense of the general public. What we have
now is a mechanism that has been altered to such an extreme that it only
serves to perpetuate the advantages that these particular individuals.

To my mind, the purpose of this grass roots movement to have a vote on the
rebid of the ICANN contracts is to draw attention to the importance of
prudence in governance, in a way that will tell the decision makers that an
automatic renewal of the contracts between ICANN and the US Department of
Commerce is not necessarily the best course of action in the public interest
at this time. For me, that's a worthy goal, whether the initiative was taken
by Ralph Nadar's gang or Mickey Mouse, frankly I don't care - it is simply
"the right thing to do" in the situation.

Furthermore, I totally reject the suggestion that we need to debate a
possible ICANN replacement before taking such a vote, since a thorough
investigation of the options cannot possibly be addressed in only a few
days. Our duty is to identify the problem and this movement is about
acknowledging a problem exists in a very public way, that's all.

I have been trying to suppress my inclination to advocacy, since the
situation is already complicated enough, but if I were to advocate for one
amendment, it would be this - deny the current administration the right to
rebid on the ICANN contract. These individuals cannot be trusted. They lie,
they cheat, they steal, they are rotten to the core. Get rid of them.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:13:35 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the "rebid" vote: Now we're getting somewhere!

At 09:51 a.m. 9/05/2002 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>I'd suggest that, starting with Jamie's "motion," we most politely and 
>subserviently ask our stalwart work horse, Joanna Lane, to consolidate 
>these posts into a single document that identifies each motion 
>numerically, as in "#001 -- "Rebid" -- Proponent - James Love"; "#002 -- 
>"Rebid" -- Proponent - "Dan"; etc.

You could not have said more clearly that the Chair is not doing the job he 
was elected for:
Processing motions and facilitating the expression of the Assembly's consensus.

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 23:02:21 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion # 1

WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN) has
dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
proposing even further changes.

WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the Internet
community and go even further from the original terms of reference.

WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of Commerce
(the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for restructuring, and
alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources, while
providing for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.

WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting Organization
(the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White Paper, the
Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to withdraw
from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).

It is hereby RESOLVED that:-

The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US Department of
Commerce to have an open competition for the services now provided by ICANN,
provided that the new competition would address the need to develop an
international framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim
to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
competition and freedom.

Agree [  ]
Disagree [  ]
Abstain [  ]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 23:15:52 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

All concerned parties regardless of their views should add their names below
if they feel a vote should be taken on the following Motion. Ten names are
the minimum sought by the Chair for this to proceed. Deadline, Friday May
10th.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________

> WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
> (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference
> for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes.
>
> WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in
> the Internet community and go even further from the original
> terms of reference.
>
> WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
> Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for
> restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for managing
> key Internet resources, while providing for a public record of
> the process for enhanced visibility.
>
> WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
> Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green
> and the White Paper, the Government of the United States made it
> clear that it intends to withdraw from management of the Domain
> name System (the DNS).
>
>
> It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
>
> The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization
> of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition
> for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new
> competition would address the need to develop an international
> framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim to
> achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of
> DNS services, consistent with the need for stability, but also
> innovation, competition and freedom.
>
> Agree [  ]
> Disagree [  ]
> Abstain [  ]
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 23:38:18 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

I support a GA vote being taken on this Motion.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:16 PM
> To: GA List; James Love
> Subject: RE: Motion # 1 - addendum
> 
> 
> All concerned parties regardless of their views should add their 
> names below if they feel a vote should be taken on the following 
> Motion. Ten names are the minimum sought by the Chair for this to 
> proceed. Deadline, Friday May 10th.
> __________________________________________________________________
> ______________________
> 
> > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers 
> > (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference 
> > for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes. 
> > 
> > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in 
> > the Internet community and go even further from the original 
> > terms of reference. 
> > 
> > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of 
> > Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for 
> > restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for managing 
> > key Internet resources, while providing for a public record of 
> > the process for enhanced visibility.  
> > 
> > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting 
> > Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green 
> > and the White Paper, the Government of the United States made it 
> > clear that it intends to withdraw from management of the Domain 
> > name System (the DNS). 
> > 
> > 
> > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
> > 
> > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization 
> > of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
> > asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition 
> > for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new 
> > competition would address the need to develop an international 
> > framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim to 
> > achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of 
> > DNS services, consistent with the need for stability, but also 
> > innovation, competition and freedom.
> > 
> > Agree [  ]
> > Disagree [  ]
> > Abstain [  ]
> > 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 23:42:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Working Paper 

A "Working Paper on the ICANN Structure and the Nominating Committee Concept" 
has just been released by the ICANN Board Committee on Evolution and Reform:

http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-structure-09may02.ht
m

Comments would be appreciated.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:43:10 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Virus Alert and apologies

Sorry about that.

Yes, a virus sneaked in, and this list was one of its first targets. For
those getting mail from me, especially with an attachment, DON"T open it.

To those kind folk who've already mailed me - -thanks.

I am clean again.....

My regards

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 00:08:39 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion # 1

Jeff,
You're not being asked to vote openly on the motion, you're being asked
whether or not you want the motion to be put to the whole assembly for a
secret ballot in due course....Subtle difference, but I'll take it that you
support the Motion proceeding to a Vote unless you indicate otherwise...:-)
Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 1:49 AM
> To: Joanna Lane
> Cc: GA List; James Love; Don Evans; Karen Rose; kathy smith; Nancy J.
> Victory; Clyde Ensslin; Connie Morella; Conrad Burns; Kay Bailey
> Hutchison; icann board address
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1
>
>
> Joanna and all assembly members,
>
>
>   See my vote below as indicated.
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
> (ICANN) has
> > dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
> > proposing even further changes.
> >
> > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in
> the Internet
> > community and go even further from the original terms of reference.
> >
> > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department
> of Commerce
> > (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for
> restructuring, and
> > alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet
> resources, while
> > providing for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.
> >
> > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
> Organization
> > (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the
> White Paper, the
> > Government of the United States made it clear that it intends
> to withdraw
> > from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).
> >
> > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
> >
> > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization
> of Internet
> > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US
> Department of
> > Commerce to have an open competition for the services now
> provided by ICANN,
> > provided that the new competition would address the need to develop an
> > international framework for DNS management. An open competition
> should aim
> > to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
> > services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
> > competition and freedom.
> >
> > Agree [x]
>
>   I agree with this motion...
>
> >
>
> > Disagree [  ]
> > Abstain [  ]
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 21:13:47 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

Joanna - The word "asks" is unacceptable in any sense of a motion. This is
not a request to, but a statement of an organizational commitment. It must
at the very least be replaced by the work "petitions" or this resolution is
nothing more than feather in the breeze and there's no point in doing it.

Todd Glassey
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "GA List" <[email-masked]>; "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:02 PM
Subject: [ga] Motion # 1

>
> WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN)
has
> dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
> proposing even further changes.
>
> WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the
Internet
> community and go even further from the original terms of reference.
>
> WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of Commerce
> (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for restructuring, and
> alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources, while
> providing for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.
>
> WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
Organization
> (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White Paper,
the
> Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to withdraw
> from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).
>
>
> It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
>
> The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of
Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US Department
of
> Commerce to have an open competition for the services now provided by
ICANN,
> provided that the new competition would address the need to develop an
> international framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim
> to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
> services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
> competition and freedom.
>
> Agree [  ]
> Disagree [  ]
> Abstain [  ]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 00:56:09 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] For the Record

A point of clarification on my earlier statement.  I am not adverse to 
this "rebid motion" going to a vote.  I am of the opinion that the GA 
has the ability to vote on what it pleases, including the 
proposal/petition currently under discussion, as the NC itself has 
repeatedly dabbled in areas outside its concern (including the AtLarge 
issue among other things!).  Mission creep is an unwritten rule within 
ICANN.  There is no question in my mind that there can be any valid 
objection to the vote going forward.  On the other hand, I was concerned 
that my support for a vote may be misconstrued as public support for the 
"motion" currently under consideration.  I believe the current motion 
proposal is much too simplistic as is, and furthermore, it does not 
address the primary issue in ICANN's miscreant behaviour: the systematic 
and deliberate dismantling of effective and meaningful public 
participation and input in ICANN policy making.  

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> As I already stated 
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00848.html), I do not 
> believe a re-bid vote would kill the GA, nor will it embarass ICANN. 
> That said, let me also state that I am withdrawing my support for the 
> "rebid motion" at this time.  Joanna, please remove my name from the 
> list of supporters for said "motion".
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> -- 
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 01:12:33 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Motion # 1

I don't know is this is a motion or a sui generis proceedure to get
something on a ballot, but please add my name to those supporting this text.
Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "GA List" <[email-masked]>; "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:02 PM
Subject: Motion # 1

>
> WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN)
has
> dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
> proposing even further changes.
>
> WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the
Internet
> community and go even further from the original terms of reference.
>
> WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of Commerce
> (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for restructuring, and
> alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources, while
> providing for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.
>
> WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
Organization
> (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White Paper,
the
> Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to withdraw
> from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).
>
>
> It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
>
> The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of
Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US Department
of
> Commerce to have an open competition for the services now provided by
ICANN,
> provided that the new competition would address the need to develop an
> international framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim
> to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
> services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
> competition and freedom.
>
> Agree [ x ]  Jamie Love
> Disagree [  ]
> Abstain [  ]
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 23:13:28 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

On 5/9/02 at 11:02 PM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote the following :

>WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN) has

<snip>

>competition and freedom.

>Agree [x]
>Disagree [  ]
>Abstain [  ]

Cheers,

Darrell

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 02:36:53 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] reform proposal

Kristy and others,

I would welcome hearing from the GA as Kristy suggests -- the recently released papers from the Evolution and Reform Committee offer a new opportunity for input. Can the GA develop comments for the questions raised by those papers, even if it is only some of the questions?  

I know time is short for everyone. 

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kristy McKee [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] reform proposal

Folks, if we are really considering this proposal, why don't we start by 
listing all the processes we want to change or list what we want?  How will 
the decision makers know who to choose if we don't communicate what we want?

For example, if you want Ben and Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk ice 
cream, don't tell me you are tired of chocolate yogurt and want me to get 
you something else in the genre of ice cream.  Tell me you want Ben and 
Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk ice cream.  In reference to ICANN, let's 
be specific about what we WANT, in addition to letting them know why we 
don't want ICANN.

Our Names Council is discussing this topic and has requested our input.  I 
am willing to set aside some time to help come up with a response for them 
to ponder and perhaps include in their findings/report.  I would think 
those who are sincere would also volunteer to participate in such a 
group.  We even have an extra publicly archived mail list we could use to 
move the process/work to another location, one without a five post limit.

:)

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 02:53:07 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Reform Committee on Board nomination and selection

This is the May 9 Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform, "Working Paper on
the ICANN Structure and the Nominating Committee Concept,"  followed by some
brief CPTech comments we submitted today.  Jamie

http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-structure-09may02.
htm

II. The Nominating Committee Concept

The Lynn proposal suggested a fifteen-person Board, with five ex officio and
ten At Large members - with five of the At Large members to be selected,
somehow, by governments. The rationale was two-fold: (1) a less directly
representational Board would likely be a better Board in the long run, and
(2) the government-selected At Large trustees would provide a voice for the
general public interest, and thus respond to the accountability/legitimacy
issues that generated much of the motivation for At Large online voting. The
Lynn proposal further suggested that the five At Large trustees not selected
by governments (and about half of each Policy Council Steering Committee) be
selected by a Nominating Committee (NomCom) made up of three Board members
and four other persons selected by the Board.

As indicated earlier in this paper, for purposes of this discussion we
assume that governments will select no Board members in the relevant time
frame. Thus, the NomCom on this assumption would be responsible for filling
vacancies in the ten At Large Board seats, not just five as suggested in the
Lynn proposal.

A. The Rationale for a Nominating Committee

The major criticism of the NomCom idea to date has been that, since it was
made up of Board members and Board appointees, it was too controlled by the
Board, and thus formed a "closed circle" that was too self-reproducing,
preventing needed renewal, corrections, and adjustments as the Internet
evolves. This criticism appears to the Committee to have some merit, and
thus we solicit comment on a modification designed to respond to that
criticism while retaining the perceived benefits of a NomCom process.

We would like to solicit comments on the following concept: a NomCom
consisting of delegates from identified constituencies (possible examples
would be such groups as registries, registrars, RIRs, large business users,
consumer organizations, academic or other non-commercial organizations,
etc.) Such a NomCom might have a non-voting chair appointed by the Board
(possibly a Board member, possibly not), and it might also include one or
more liaisons (IAB, GAC, etc.) that could either have voting rights or not.
These could serve to provide insights about particular needs on either the
Board or a Policy Council Steering Committee, and about the strengths or
weaknesses of particular people being considered based on prior knowledge or
experience. Another way to accomplish this goal is to have some ex officio
members (voting or non-voting) on the NomCom from the Board.

We use the word "delegate" intentionally. For ICANN to be the most effective
organization it can be, its Board should be as neutral and objective, and as
capable, as is possible under the circumstances. We do not believe that a
Board composed primarily of representatives of specific interested groups is
the best way to reach this goal. By contrast, we believe that a Board
composed of persons with diverse skills and perspectives and the right
personalities, that can act collegially and effectively to make decisions
that are grounded in the best interests of the overall communities affected
would serve both the public interest and the long-term interest of all
direct participants in ICANN. This view suggests that on the NomCom, the
general public interest could be represented by those delegates selected by
consumer organizations and user groups, while the providers would also
supply delegates to the NomCom. We do believe it is both appropriate and
useful to have those constituencies that are directly and consistently
involved in ICANN to have an important role in the selection of Board
members, but we respectfully suggest that it is more consistent with the
goal - a consistently high-quality, effective Board - that all constituency
representatives on the NomCom (whether from providers, consumer groups, or
users) think of themselves as "delegates," not as "representatives" - in
other words, as bringing a particular perspective and knowledge to the joint
process of selecting good ICANN Board members, rather than "representing"
the narrow interests of the particular constituency that brought them to the
NomCom.

This is not, in our view, metaphysical semantics. The only way that an
ICANN-type entity can be effective is if it advances the common good. Now,
this is of course a composite of the legitimate interests of all
participants (as well as non-participants), but it may in any particular
case not directly reflect any one of those interests. What is needed in
ICANN, not only at the Board level but also in the policy-development
bodies, is less political log-rolling and more genuine efforts to find
consensus solutions. This effort will be advanced if we establish a culture
and tradition of looking for the common good of the community, even if this
occurs through the perspective of a particular interested party or group.

B. Specific Issues on Which Comments are Invited

      Q24. Comments Requested: We invite comments on this general
articulation of the NomCom concept. This approach basically seeks to move
from a Board made up of representatives to a Board made up of capable,
interested, effective persons, who may or may not have a direct involvement
in the day-to-day activities of those entities most involved in ICANN. We
seek to accomplish that by pushing direct representation away from the Board
itself to the body that selects a majority of the Board, creating a buffer
(the representational NomCom) between particular interest groups or
constituencies and the Board itself.

      Q25. Comments Requested: We also invite comment on the specific
identities of the groups or constituencies that should be represented on
such a NomCom, in addition to the question of whether and how new groups or
constituencies would be allowed to gain participation on the NomCom.

      Q26. Comments Requested: We also invite comment on exactly how the
NomCom would function. We envision that that particular self-organized
groups (whether called forums or constituencies or some other name), as well
as the general public, could recommend persons to the NomCom, which would
then through a process of discussion and debate generate nominations that
had broad consensus support throughout the community.

      Q27. Comments Requested: Another point on which we solicit comment is
whether NomCom members should be prohibited from themselves being nominated
for at least their tenure on the NomCom and perhaps for a short period
afterwards. This would reduce fears of self-dealing, but potentially at the
price of diminishing the available pool of candidates.

      Q28. Comments Requested: Another issue on which we solicit comments is
whether, and if so what, particular criteria or standards should apply to
the process by which the NomCom makes selections. In the ICANN context,
these could include (at least for the Board and probably for the Steering
Committees as well) geographic diversity, functional diversity, etc. Such
standards should probably be measured in the aggregate, not for any
particular opening, so that some but not necessarily all would be relevant
to any given nomination cycle. In addition, there could be specific
perceived needs in any given cycle, either for the Board or for a particular
Steering Committee, that could be communicated to the NomCom by the Board,
perhaps through the non-voting Chair, and/or decided by the NomCom itself,
based on inputs from its members and/or any liaisons. Any comments on these
ideas are welcome.

      Q29. Comments Requested: There is also the issue of whether the Board
should be permitted to reject a nominee or a slate of nominees, and if so
whether that should require a super-majority vote of some kind. While it is
hard to imagine what entity other than the Board could reasonably ratify
nominees, we welcome suggestions or comments on whether ratification of
NomCom selections is desirable, and if so by what entity and under what
standards.

      Q30. Comments Requested: We also invite comments on the terms of
NomCom members. Assuming an appropriate transition and staggered terms, the
NomCom in any given year would likely select 3-4 Trustees and 1-2 members of
each Steering Committee. This seems a manageable task. Should each NomCom
exist for a one-year or two-year cycle, and then be reconstituted with
different members, or is there some value to continuity? If it was thought
necessary to provide continuity, members could serve with staggered terms,
so some portion were replaced each year. This may not be necessary if there
are sufficient liaisons and/or ex officio members. Would the formation of
new NomComs each year appropriately balance the need for renewal and
inclusiveness with the need for continuity and stability? Can the NomCom and
its make-up be isolated from cumbersome and ultimately
effectiveness-reducing politics? To what extent would a NomCom procedure
isolate the Board from such politics? Comments are welcome.

Conclusion

===========================

CPTech comments to Committee on ICANN Reform
Regarding ICANN Structure and and Nominating Committee Concept.

1.  What are you mixing up is both the nomination and the election process.
The term "nominatng committee" is misleading if the committee nominates and
elects.

2.  I find it completely wrong to have the board members having any say over
who gets elected to the  board.   Here is just one reason.  Suppose it is
well known that the only way to get on the board, is to be selected by the
board itself.  Suppose then you have a choice of speaking out in favor of
something the board is doing or opposed to what the board is doing.  What
are the odds you would ever be elected to the board if you criticized the
board?  Ok, where does this dynamic lead?

3.  Every member of the board should be elected by non-board members, no
matter who they are.  This should be basic.  This is not like a family
trust, foundation or other non-profit organization that is run by self
perpetuating boards, it seems to me.  If Bill Gates wants to put up his own
money to advance some charitable purpose, he gets to set up a self
perpetuating board.  If ICANNWatch, CDT, EPIC, EFF, CPTech or anyone else
wants to create a self perpetuating board, that's fine too, this a basic
right of association.   But it isn't the right model for something that
wants to be a global Internet regulator.

4.   If the ICANN BOD wants authority, it has to give up control over the
election of its members to others, who have some creditable basis for doing
so.  The process should not be designed to produce a board of persons who
will not be critical or will not dissent.

5.  I'd rather have SOs electing board members, including SOs that represent
user interests, than having the board elect itself.    There may be other
ways of doing things too.

6.  Has the reform committee decided to junk the at large membership voting
idea?  I just want to have some clarity on this, since I was just elected to
some panel to organize such an at large membership (coming out of the ALSC
process and the go forth and multiply Accra thing).

7.   How about things like term limit or rotating chairs, to reduce the
danger of empire building?

8.  Who elects the board is closely related to what powers the board will
have.   If it can do literally anything in the name of Internet stability,
then you need an election process that is quite representative of the
public.  If it coordinates six technical tasks and that is the end of its
authority, then maybe all sorts of less representative structures are
acceptable.

Jamie

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1176
*************************