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--