Karl, Following on your “off-topic” (I changed the subject line) I wold like to add a bit of history. You wrote: A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors …. When I was chairing the Board Review WG, I argued against having the CEO as a voting member rather than ex-officio observer. Besides any governance model, having to vote on issues that he would have been called to execute could put the CEO in an embarrassing position: what if he voted against, and the motion passed? This was, IMHO, not just a theoretical exercise, but something that could really happen on politically sensitive issues, like the .xxx delegation (in that case, Paul abstained, and the application was rejected by one or two votes). My approach was considered, but the Chair argued that for the current CEO the provision was built in the contract, and could not be changed, but this would have been taken into account for the next CEO. Then I left the Board, and lost track of the later events, but it looks that the situation still remains unchanged. Cheers, Roberto On 26.07.2022, at 21:39, Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: I'm going to be somewhat diverging from the main topic.... On 7/26/22 8:14 AM, Marita Moll wrote: And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system. I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance. I was horrified when I first saw it just after Jon Postel died, and became more horrified watching Joe Sims of Jones Day ramming it down our collective throats. In the Boston Working Group proposal for "NewCo" we tried to mitigate some of the worst aspects. See https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ for the Boston Working Group proposals. A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors and moving some ICANN powers into the Articles of Incorporation and requiring exercise of those powers to be approved by more than merely the board (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.) My most recent piece in opposition to stakeholder based systems may be found here: Democracy Versus Stakeholderism - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/ --karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.