On 09/24/2009 10:11 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
while many of us still prefer the election model, the Board has only agreed to an appointment model.
The word "appoint" as used in the resolution is not specific regarding the person or body that does the appointing nor does it specify the method through which the choice of who to appoint is made. An elective system fits within that the confines of an appointive process - the public uses an elective process to chose the person that "the public" appoints to the board. (I don't care whether "elective" means direct elections or indirect, as long as the latter has no more than one layer of intermediary.) I see great danger of "nominating committee" processes. What works for the IETF does not work at all in the highly politicized world of ICANN; we've seen how ICANN's board is so sheepishly passive that it has lost control of its "staff". I strongly believe in the "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" principle. ICANN is terrified of it and has spent a decade building barricades against the public will. One of those barricades is the aristocratic view that only those who participate in ICANN's forums are worthy enough to make informed and intelligent choices about ICANN. The ALAC system would possibly collapse were ICANN to withhold funding and "staff" assistance - it has not been able to create an independent system of support; it has never over the years of its existence been able to garner even a tiny percentage of the size and energy that were created for the public ICANN elections of year 2000. If it can not garner sufficient public support just to exist one has to ask whether it is right or proper to empower it to be the one and only channel for the expression of the public viewpoint. It would be odd if that dependent ALAC had more appointive power than a self-organized and self-funded group of internet users or a number of internet users who come together in their support of a person to articulate their point of view. People ought to take a look at the ICANN elections of year 2000. Here in the US/Canada there was a robust election among 7 qualified candidates, including luminaries such as Larry Lessig and Barbara Simons. Face-to-face debates were held in several locations across the continent. There was a vibrant electronic exchange of viewpoints by the candidates and by observers. ICANN did not contribute a penny into this process; rather it grew from the interest of the public in having its own voice on the ICANN board.
I see that you are not keen on having the ALS/RALO/ALAC members make the selection. If broad-based elections are out of the equation, what group then, in your view, is most suited to be the appointing body?
ICANN exists as a body that is required to serve the public interest. That, to my mind, means that the choice *must* be in the hands of the public and no other. And that choice must be made through mechanisms that do not require the intercession and blessing of any body that is part of the ICANN hierarchy. The only thing that ICANN should do is to provide a system to register the voters, process the election, and count the votes. --karl--