Olivier is right about this. CW On 10 Oct 2015, at 21:35, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Bill,
comments in the text below:
On 10/10/2015 19:58, Bill Silverstein wrote:
On Sat, October 10, 2015 10:51 am, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 10/10/2015 18:17, Bill Silverstein wrote:
ICANN needs to have people that will oversee its actions, or lack of. And you are saying that the best people to perform this oversight will be the industry which you ask ICANN to regulate? Kindest regards,
Olivier
No. That is how the problems occurred in the first place, or at least in public.
Maybe one or two people from the industry that ICANN is supposed to regulate but some from the general registration public and the general internet using public (who understand the internet.)
Well -- IMHO, the current CCWG Accountability Proposal proposes that the Board could be over-ruled, or dismissed, or individual Board members could be kicked out by a Committee whose composition is such that the GNSO & CCNSO, both composed primarily of people who are in the business of domain names, could have a majority irrespective of the Advisory Committees like the ALAC. The ALAC might have only 1 person on the ICANN Board, at least the NomCom selected Board members are somehow independent of the Domain Name Industry. That's what bothers me deeply in a membership model that allocates votes to SOs/ACs instead of working on Consensus. Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org