[ga] Re: Restructuring Proposal

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

In response to the Restructuring Proposal that I submitted, Jefsey has posed 
two questions:

The first question concerns categories of entitities that are not directly 
represented at the Board level, such as telcos, media, religious 
organizations, financial institutions, etc.   At issue is which groups are 
deemed major stakeholders in the ICANN process currently, and what 
"evolutionary" provisions have been made to accomodate emerging stakeholder 
groups.

As an organization, we have committed to abiding by certain principles noted 
in the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce... 
one such principle (representation) states in part:  "These mechanisms will 
promote the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the composition of the 
Internet user community and their needs."

Jefsey is correct in noting that one deficiency in my proposal is that the 
Director selection process is static rather than dynamic.  There is a manner 
by which this problem may be corrected.  

We are all aware that the composition of any given constituent group changes 
over the course of time as does the total number of members on its roster.  
ICANN has previously accepted the notion that certain threshold requirements 
must be met for any constituent entity that seeks recognition.  Carrying that 
logic forward, it may also be held that a constituent group must maintain a 
certain quantity of members lest it become disaccreditted and lose the right 
to elect representatives to the Board.

I note that ISOC (as but one example) has decommissioned a number of its 
chapters (in that those groups have failed to maintain their numbers at a 
certain level).  Those decommissioned chapters do lose certain privileges.  
The same principle may be applied to ICANN constituencies that seek to have 
representation on the Board.   If a hypothetical threshold level of 50 
members was established as a bare minimum, then it is certainly possible that 
our current ISP constituency (among others) might not qualify as a group 
entitled to seat a Director.  The possibility of "vacancies" would  allow for 
other currently non-recognized organizations to petition for recognition.

This "petition-for-recognition mechanism" creates a challenge process whereby 
emerging stakeholders groups may vie with established groups for 
representation on the Board.   Obviously, certain safeguards will need to be 
established.  In Accra, Alejandro Pisanty pointed to a problem in certain 
Latin American communities during election cycles -- uninformed voters were 
rounded up from the countryside and trucked to the voting box by political 
groups intent on victory at all costs.  We need to be able to feel 
comfortable that constituencies seeking Board level representation haven't 
resorted to practices which have the effect of "stuffing their membership 
roles" just to meet threshold criteria.

Should a given constituent group lose a "challenge" and be replaced by 
another constituency, this will not terminate their involvement in the ICANN 
process (as they will continue to function and may still communicate with the 
Board by way of the Ombudsman that has been established as a liaison to 
organizations that seek to address the Board).

I look forward to further discussion on how we may best structure a flexible 
mechanism that equitably allows emerging stakeholder groups to join ICANN and 
be accorded proper representation, and would like to thank Jefsey for raising 
this issue.

I will respond to Jefsey's second comment in a subsequent post.








--
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