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

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I do think that the acid test of any 'reform' proposal is whether someone
like Karl or Andy could possibly be selected.  These are highly competent
people selected by a vote of a determined and informed community.  If the
new selection procedure is one that insures that there is no reasonable
possibility that such an ICANN critic could be selected, then we know it's
rigged and want no part of it.

On Sat, 25 May 2002, 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
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

--
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