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

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
Cc: "General assembly list" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] consensus on methods to select board members


: 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.

  How would you put that in terms of a resolution for the GA?

Jamie



:
: 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