FW: [wg-review] [BoD] Yesterday's news.

["Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>]

Eric:  I agree.  I'd like to add in c. that cost is an additional important
goal for the average Internet "user" and also that funding of the
administration of policies for use of the internet is important.

Cindy

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Eric Dierker
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:00 PM
To: Karl Auerbach
Cc: Bret Busby; sotiris@hermesnetwork.com; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] [BoD] Yesterday's news.

Anyone please correct any of these points if they are not correct:

a.    Everyones life is impacted by the internet, somehow.
b.    Everyone is a stakeholder in how the internet is administered.
c.    Access and reliability are the two most important goals of
admistration
of the internet.
d.    ICANN is in need of improvements.
e.    Ultimately the BoD should all be duly elected and represent a broad
spectrum of interests. Constituencies should reflect those interests.
f.    ICANN should be operated within the law.
g.    On a practical level, both majority rule and consensus must be used
in
order to effectuate the goals of administereing the internet.
h.    Education of the public and ICANN directors is a worthwhile goal.
i.     Somehow ICANN must fund itself.

Thank you for any imput, sometimes I just require a little tierra firma to
stand on while trying to gage these sifting sands.
Sincerely

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> > >From the above article;
> > ""I don't believe that (the board) is legitimate until it consists at
> > least half of people who came from the Internet community," ICANN
> > Director Karl Auerbach told Newsbytes today."
>
> I don't think I used those words - reporters quite frequently get quotes
> wrong.  But it is true that it is my feeling that the debate over the
> number of at-large directors seats shouldn't be over some number less
than
> 9 (i.e. half or less) of the total number of seats but, instead, should
be
> on whether the at-large should fill *all* of the board seats.  The reason
> for that is that the at-large permits participation for all those people
> who operate today via the SO's.  To my mind a "primary" policymaking
> organ, such as a supporting organization, already has a pretty major role
> to play and ought not to also be picking people who will be deciding
> whether to accept that policy.  Instead, my feeling, is that it is a
> better structure to have those who will have to endure and pay for the
> policy, i.e. the Internet community (everyone who is affected by the net)
> to select the people who will decide whether to accept that policy.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html