Excellent. So, tomorrow we start a global vote for the ICANN Board. I am sure that you do not want to have some parts of the world's population to be at a disadvantage over others - the vote must be an opportunity that is equal to everybody, regardless geography, political regime, availability of Internet connection, level of alphabetisation, and so on. So now, in the current world situation at the 1. July 2019, how can you ensure that you have the same level of participation in downtown NYC and in the steppes of Central Asia? It is obvious to me that if this is not achieved the system will be fundamentally biased. Does this sound like a discussion that we already had, and maybe more than once, in the last 20 years? Cheers, Roberto
On 01.07.2019, at 22:12, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 7/1/19 12:36 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote
So, in short, how can ICANN get rid od the supposedly failing multi-stakeholder model and go back to what Paul R. Letho defines “democracy”? Or, in simple words, how would a non-multi-stakeholder model be designed and implemented for ICANN?
That's pretty easy: Resurrect the system of nominations and elections from year 2000 (but expanded to cover the entire board-of-directors.) Despite the denials of some, that system worked. Yes, there were problems with the registration - including several caused by ICANN itself. But that could have been cured on subsequent rounds.
The claim that in some regions (most particularly Asia/Pacific) that some large corporations "motivated" their employees probably had some truth. But absent those elections those corporations in a "stakeholder" (or lobbyist) system most likely would have simply acted through the more certain and direct tool of those captive lobbyist/stakeholders than through the less certain tool of trying to influence individual electors.
Influence by those with size and wealth so that they can engage in any forum at any time and at any location will always be a problem, no matter the system.
In addition, to elections themselves, ICANN should put into place the protections afforded by law to allow the voting members to get the information they need to make informed choices and to take certain limited actions in certain extraordinary circumstances. The protections are not unreasonable; they have been honed on the stone of long practice and experience with ICANN-like organizations.
This change would a representative system, not a direct one - the real authority (and responsibility) between elections would remain where it ought to be (and legally is): vested in the board of directors. At the next election the voters can replace those directors who fail to meet the voters' standards or whose pattern of decisions is not in accord with their desires.
Lobbyists would have to convince voters or convince the board members (hopefully via open and transparent means.)
By-the-way, in that sense, we are all lobbyists for our own interests. But as individuals we are all lobbyists of roughly the same size. We can't say the same about institutional lobbyists/stakeholders who are paid to advocate for the institutional goals 24x7x365. Better a system based on rough equality than a system that naively presumes that giants don't have greater strength.
--karl--