[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN articles of incorporation

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jamie and all,

  All this gets down to some pretty simple process/structure points.

1.) Whom elects/decides/selects/appoints the ICANN BoD
     and to a lesser degree the ICANN Staff.
2.) If elected, who has the right to vote for filling the BoD seats?
3.) If not elected by stakeholders/users, how are BoD members
     to be selected.
4.) Whom are these ICANN BOD members responsible/accountable to
      and how?

James Love wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
> > Encumbering ICANN with a formal, governmental relationship -- no
> matter
> > whether ITU or US DOC -- is the same step as Lynn is proposing.
>
> Lynn's proposal involves governments, but it is a particular approach,
> and not the one I would recommend.    But before getting to that, I
> would not reject everything Lynn said just because Lynn said it, anymore
> than I would reject everthing Dave Crocker said just because Dave
> Crocker said it.  One fundemental thing Lynn is saying is that ICANN
> needs to have a different relationships with governments, and he might
> be right about that.  Maybe the older vision of persuading DOC to simply
> turn the root over to ICANN with no strings attached is not the best
> model, particularly given the inability of ICANN to explain how it
> elects its own board members.
>
> If Lynn seeks a greater role for governments, for more legitimacy, he
> might be at least right about that, even if one disagrees about  how he
> would implement it.  And even there, Lynn has asked for comments, and
> that's good too.
>
> Lynn seems wrapped up in the Public Private Partnership  (PPP) rhetoric,
> which has been fashionable in recent years in the public health area,
> but is probably somewhat naive about PPP issues.    Lots of basic stuff
> regarding transparency, accountability and fairness can still get
> screwed up in a PPP model.  You still have to question who picks the
> board members who elect the board members the governments nominate, or
> the board members the government doesn't nominate.  And you still should
> address the boundary issue, if for no other reason to provide some basis
> for accepting this elitist and business dominated structure.  Why should
> anyone be happy with Lynn's proposal unless they have some assurance
> that is isn't going to get into areas where it has no basis to exercise
> authority?
>
> It isn't enough to say things aren't broken.  The ICANN CEO says they
> are broken, and something probably needs to be fixed.  It is my opinion
> that Lynn should run a bit with the ITU proposal to formalize the
> boundary issue for ICANN.  Maybe ITU does not want ICANN to have a huge
> policy making mandate..... and if so, that could be a good thing.
> Maybe ITU isn't the right  body to negotiate this boundary issue.   But
> if not ITU, then who?   I have an open mind on this.
>
>   Jamie
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
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 jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
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 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