Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

[Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>]

At 9:20 AM -0600 3/18/02, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>vint cerf wrote:
>
>>  Keep in mind that the intent of naming a
>>  director is NOT to "represent" a particular point of view but to serve
>>  all of ICANN and the Internet Community to the best of his/her ability.
>
>I question whether that was, indeed, the intent behind the current structure.
>Instead, I "understood" that  the reason for (s)electing directors 
>from different
>stakeholder groups or segments of the community was (as in most 
>governance models)
>to assure all interests a seat at the table.  As with "beauty," the 
>best interests
>of the community are in the eyes of the beholders.

Eric is correct.  In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998, there 
was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names, 
protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three 
other seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at 
large, which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt 
organization boards.

But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors 
bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and 
the facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected 
parts of the Internet?"  Having representation from the experts was, 
in Jon's view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening 
the oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a 
consensus based organization representing all relevant interests.

- Mike
-- 
--
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