[ga] Board decisions (2)

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net>]

Mr Chairman, members of the ICANN board, members of NC, 
members of constituencies and GA

A) CHANGE OF BYLAWS

 it was hard to imagine, but it happened : the board of ICANN used
 the power they have (according the bylaws) and voted against the
 recommendations of the DNSO constituencies and community.
 In my view these is a fundamental breach of the spirit and intention
 of ICANN and the involved parties.

 Doing so, they showed that they consider themself "selected" 
 (not elected !), but not responsible to those who made the choice.
 ICANN bylaws says:
snip----------
 Article V, Section 8. DUTIES OF DIRECTORS
    Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in 
what they reasonably believe are the best interests of the
    Corporation and not as representatives of the subordinate entity 
that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or
    constituencies. 
snap---------------

 Making representatives ( elected boards ) responsible to those who
 elected them is a fundamental issue IMO ( otherwise they are not
 representatives in the words meaning ). 

 I can not see any sense in participating in a body 
 ( constituency ) which is ignored by the board; even worse: is just
 used from time to time for "selections", intending to show an
 democratic structure which in reality is not present. I can not see
 that ICANN itself can claim to be acting for the internet community
 if the bylaws remain unchanged in section 8.

B) RESPONSIBILITIES 

 In addition I fail to see that the BoD followed Article VI, Section 2
 RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS
 in which the process of taking decisions is described.
snip--------------------------
(f) If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of a 
Supporting Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the
    Supporting Organization for further consideration, along with a 
statement of the reasons it declines to accept the
    recommendation. If, after reasonable efforts, the Board does not 
receive a recommendation from the Supporting Organization
    that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this Article VI 
or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements
    between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting 
recommendations from Supporting Organizations, and the Board 
finds
    there is a justification for prompt action, the Board may initiate, 
amend or modify and then approve a specific policy
    recommendation.
snap-------------------------

 Lets have a quick look to the members of BoD:

Selected by DOC:
Frank Fitzsimmons
Hans Kraaijenbrink
Jun Murai
Linda S. Wilson

 not clear to whom they should be responsible
 - Jon Postel ?
 - DOC ?
 - company who pays the salary ?
 These persons hardly can be asked to justify their decisions,
 which obviously is a problem.
 
Elected from PSO:
Vinton G. Cerf
Phil Davidson
Helmut Schink
 From my view primarily responsible to PSO, but also to the other
 SO, as the decision was affecting DNSO more than others, I
 would have expected a bit more conformity with spirit and VI,2,f
 A special case is Helmut, who left the timely short conference
 before voting, because of more importand things I heard,
 interesting... ( personal note from a german to a german)

Elected from ASO:
Robert Blokzijl
Ken Fockler
Sang-Hyon Kyong
same as for PSO if you change PSO with ASO. At least one (Ken) 
showed by abstaining that the spirit exists.

Elected from DNSO:
Alejandro Pisanty
Amadeu Abril i Abril
Jonathan Cohen

 Well, as a member of DNSO I tend to be more radical here and
 ask the two ( Alejandro and Jonathan ) who voted against the
 recommendations, to justify their decision or to resign.
 ( I know you dont have to, according the bylaws, but you must
 if you dont want to loose credability :-)

Elected from atLarge:
Karl Auerbach
Ivan Moura Campos
Masanobu Katoh
Andy Mueller-Maguhn
Nii Quaynor

 Here I have again a problem. to whom should they be responsible?
 It seems to me that having elections from time to time is not really
 a "representative democracy", something the LASC will have to
 find a solution. But at least 2 of them ( Andy and Karl ) voted 
 according the GA ( from my point of view something similar to
 @large :-).

 conclusion:
 if we accept the outcome of last weeks and do not learn and
 improve ICANN we better use our time earning money leaving
 ICANN to laywers. That could then be called "lawcracy" or
 "lawcrazy" ?, sorry about my english :-))

siegfried

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