<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: "Mike Roberts" <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board
[...]
> The problem we should try to address is what such channels should
> look like: How can the public provide feed-back to ICANN which (1)
> can't be ignored (like an ombudsman who gives non-binding
> recommendations), and (2) does not have a possible breakdown of
> Internet stability as its side-effect (like the introduction of
> competing roots on the sides of AOL and Microsoft)?
>
Thats an important point. "CANT BE IGNORED". The only way to
do this is to have board members selected by At-Large that can
vote on policy.
How many? Should they be a majority? If ICANN is a policy maker
and not just a technical standards body, then, YES - the majority
of the decision makers should be DIRECTLY answerable to
the internet public.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: "Mike Roberts" <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board
> On 2002-03-19 12:28:48 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
>
> >Yes, indeed. One of the first tenets of management is, "tell me
> >your solutions, not your problems."
>
> Still, stating the problem the right way is, sometimes, half of the
> solution. I'll give it a try.
>
> Let's, for a moment, assume that - whatever structure one may come
> up with for policy-making (which is interesting by itself) - we'll
> ultimately have a board which can, in reality, ignore input from the
> policy-making process if it believes that this is the best thing for
> the corporation.
>
> How can such a board be controlled? What kind of feed-back can be
> provided to such a board? There is no market which can operate as a
> feed-back channel, like in the case of a normal business. Thus,
> external feed-back channels have to be added. The single largest
> problem with the Lynn proposal is that it _eliminates_ such
> channels; even more so if even the governmental appointees have to
> go through the NomComm filter. All feed-back channels which are
> left over can be ignored by the board.
>
> The problem we should try to address is what such channels should
> look like: How can the public provide feed-back to ICANN which (1)
> can't be ignored (like an ombudsman who gives non-binding
> recommendations), and (2) does not have a possible breakdown of
> Internet stability as its side-effect (like the introduction of
> competing roots on the sides of AOL and Microsoft)?
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|