Re: [ga] Discussion Paper: At-Large "Nominations"

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

Danny all assembly members, BOD members, stakeholders or other interested
parties,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> There are times when the ICANN Board states a reason for a given action that,
> while seemingly plausible, does not appear to truly reflect the actual
> thinking of the Board.   In other words, the stated reason seems to hide the
> true considerations that prompted the decision.

  Yes this is especially true with the ICANN BoD and previously the
ICANN Interim BoD as well.  None the less such methods of
action or communication to the stakeholder community is dishonest,
and therefore misleading, and not transparent or open...

>
>
> The recent resolution to cancel upcoming elections for At-large directors is
> one such example.  The Board publicly stated that it was prompted by concerns
> about capture, identity verification processes, and by the validity,
> fairness, representativeness, affordability and practicality of global online
> elections... a lot of verbiage outlining concerns that had already been
> sufficiently discounted by both major groups that had investigated the
> At-Large election issues, the ALSC and NAIS.
>
> What is most likely the truth of the matter?
>
> We know that an election process will invariably draw highly vocal critics of
> ICANN.  We also know that in a climate where it is fashionable to hate the
> ICANN organization such critics have an extremely high chance of being
> elected by the voting members of the general public.  The ICANN Board was
> facing the very real political prospect of having half of their Board
> potentially populated by their worst critics.

  Indeed this about covers the "Truth of the Matter", as they say.  However
this has been stated in several different ways by a wide spectrum of
stakeholders/users as well as a large and growing number of stakeholders/users.
So this is not exactly new or especially reveling information.


> There are those on the current Board that view such a prospect as destabilizing
> and "not in the best interests of the Corporation" -- essentially they strongly
> maintain the view
> that such a Board composition would thoroughly paralyze the organization, and
> no way in Hell would they ever allow such a development to proceed unchecked.

  And of course this falsehood has been well known and stated by
quite a number of stakeholders/users as well.  But it does bare
repeating as it is totally a paranoid view that reflects directly
upon those few that share in it as fact to be not competent
in the extreme.

>
> The elections were cancelled for pretty much the same reasons that national
> governments on occasion choose to cancel an election cycle -- fear of the
> potential success of the rival opposition party, and the sentiment that a
> government that included in great measure such nefarious elements would
> ill-serve the nation's needs.  The motivation may be misguided but it still
> is, in one sense, almost patriotic.

  There is nothing patriotic about canceling a duly constituted national
election.  Such a notion in any democratic nation of good standing
would be paramount to a serious identity crisis on a national scale.
The ICANN BoD and especially the Interim BOD on the other hand,
before and after the green paper was well on it's way to being captured
by the old IAHC bunch along with especially the gTLD-MoU
CORE folks and were even then greatly opposed to what became
the White Paper and the MoU.  Hence here we are with a rogue
BoD essentially that cannot honor it's agreements and contractual
requirements..

>
>
> I will not argue as to the relative validity of the motivations that prompted
> the Board's action.  My intent here is to determine a proper course of action
> that may yet preserve the At-Large while still respecting the Board's
> sensibilities.

  I don't think that preserving the At-Large and "respecting the Board's
sensibilities" is feasible nor should it be.  The current BoD must be
replaced or the ICANN contract should be considered for a new
Bid by the DOC/NTIA.  In fact this is likely long overdue...

>
>
> Being pragmatic, we have to realize that this Board still wields the power
> and still controls the process.  Yes, there are those that believe that if
> sufficient pressure is exerted upon Congress, a successor agency to ICANN
> will be designated, or at the very least the ICANN contracts will be re-bid.
> I, however, have a different sense of the political landscape... as long as
> ICANN doesn't thoroughly screw up in the days ahead, the Department of
> Commerce will honor the stated attempt to reform/restructure this
> organization as an activity undertaken in good faith, and will convince
> Congress that the DoC is sufficiently diligent in their oversight role to
> ensure that Congress's concerns will be satisfied.  ICANN will survive yet
> another day in an amended form.
>
> The issue we now face is how to obtain the necessary complement of At-Large
> directors in a manner that does not ostensibly "threaten" the currently
> seated Board.   If the Board can feel a necessary "comfort level" with the
> next set of At-Large directors, then the Board's perceived need to reduce the
> level of At-Large representation from that which was originally promised
> evaporates.
>
> All of us that participated in the "clean-sheet study" process understood
> that the ALSC never had a documented "consensus" to reduce the number of
> At-Large directors -- that recommendation was simply a poorly designed
> subterfuge to conceal the fact that the Committee believed that the Board
> would only accept ongoing At-large elections if the number of At-Large
> directors was reduced to a "controllable" amount.
>
> As it turned out, even that reduced amount of directors proved to be an
> unacceptable risk to the current Board.  The ALSC miscalculated, and
> elections were cancelled.
>
> That brings us to our present state of affairs...
>
> If we are to have our full complement of At-large directors, we must first
> recognize the risk that open elections pose to the Board, and secondly we
> must craft an alternative process that will both be acceptable to the Board
> and which will effectively meet the needs of the broader At-Large community.
> In an earlier recommendation, I have already proposed an election plan based
> on a quantifiable subset of the At-Large.  In this recommendation, I consider
> the merits of the nomination process as the only other remaining option.
>
> The key issue is:  if we have to resort to nominations of At-Large Directors,
> who will be making the nominations?   The At-Large Community will rightfully
> feel betrayed if such nominations are made by either a Board Committee, or by
> the non-At-Large directors on the Board.  The one solution that is eminently
> logical and reasonable is for all At-large directors to nominate their own
> replacements (with the suggested caveat that no director may select a
> replacement from his/her own country).
>
> At this point in time, I believe that the Board is sufficiently comfortable
> with the judgement of the bulk of its At-large directors to not feel
> threatened by the prospect that they will select poor replacements (and even
> should such a "poor" selection be made by any one or two At-Large directors,
> such new Board members would invariably become a very "manageable" minority
> element).  The At-large community, by the same token, should be able to feel
> comfortable with the fact that their own representatives will be making a
> well-considered choice that serves to guarantee geographic/cultural
> diversity.  Most obviously, the informed electorate that formerly would have
> voted now becomes able to lobby its representative in favor of certain
> candidates.  No...  a vote is not held, but nonetheless the public can make
> its choice of candidates known and can encourage the At-large director to
> make the "right choice" through open processes.
>
> I recognize that there are always flaws in any proposal, and that we haven't
> accounted for how the currently "non-elected" At-Large directors would
> guarantee that their choices added to the cultural/geographic diversity that
> we require, but that is why this is a discussion paper...
>

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