Re: [ga] consensus on methods to select board members

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

Jamie and all assembly members,

  I think that both Stuart Lynn's approach and Linda Wilsons on Board
member determination/election or god forbid, selection are frankly
inappropriate and incompatible as they relate to the White Paper
and the MoU as a number of senators and congress persons as
well as the GAO have noted.

  Therefore our members and I as a GA member believe that
a motion from the GA properly crafted along with the already
decided Rebid motion which recently passed would help
to clarify and send notice to the DOC/NTIA as well as
congress and the GAO as to a broadly supported method
od dealing with this now revisited issue.

  Please also try not to forget that the ALSC and previous
At-Large "Studies" that have been conducted by ICANN
and other organizations as well as discussed in the DNSO,
have clearly shown that the majority of the Board should
be elected by the stakeholders/users...

James Love wrote:

> One of the major issues on the current ICANN reform effort concerns the
> decision about how ICANN will select its board members.  There is one issue
> that seems ripe for seeking a consensus on the GA, and that concerns the
> narrow issue of whether or not the ICANN board will somehow be able to
> accept or reject "nominations" to its board, or even more important, should
> the ICANN board be permitted to elect its own board members.  Some board
> members, such as Linda Wilson, seem to think that the ICANN board selection
> mechanisms should be similiar to that of a Univeristy or private
> corporation, that essentially chooses its own board members.   Even if there
> is not agreement on the specific method of election of board members, the GA
> should express opposition to the notion advanced by the staff and BOD that
> the BOD itself should be the elector of board members.   If the BOD is the
> elector of board members, there will be no chance that anyone ciritical of
> the board policies or actions will ever be elected to the board.  I would
> like to see a debate and a proposal for a resolution on this narrow
> question.
> Jamie
>
> Wilson on Q 28
> "I think that the Board should individually elect new members to the Board
> ....i.e. the NomCom should present its slate, and the Board should be free
> to decline to accept any or all. This is a safeguard for the
> NomCom....giving it full incentive to find nominees that can win the vote of
> the Board, and taking advantage of the knowledge that the Board members have
> of the individuals involved and their suitablitity for the challenges of
> Board membership.
> The probability of the Board's declining to seat a NomCom nominee is small,
> especially if the NomCom is formed with representation from the Board.
> Allowing acceptance or rejection on an individual basis also removes the
> timing difficulty of rejecting the whole slate which would be the Board's
> only choice if an unsuitable candidate were proposed. "
>
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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