Re: [ga] Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board

["John Palmer" <jp@ADNS.NET>]

----- 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@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