...and is it your intent as head of the Board Governance Committee to continue ducking the issue of At-Large representation on ICANN's Board? or the issues of transparency and accountability? Presumably you directors did more than feast at the ICANN director's retreat; will we ever get a synopsis of your discussions, or does your concept of transparency in the public interest still preclude disclosure? regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote, on 23 May 2007 01:40:
Let me remind you that I did not mention "direct elections". I, like many others, agreed with the conclusions of ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon At Large Study Committee that invested a massive amount of time and capital to conclude that a consensus existed for the formation of an At-Large Supporting Organization that would elect a third of the seats on the ICANN Board.
Danny Younger had written, on 22 May 2007 21:39:
My thoughts: From day one, the at-large was supposed to be about individuals that weren't otherwise represented within ICANN processes (individuals that would elect half of the ICANN Board so that the Special Interest elements would be properly balanced by the Public Interest elements).
Cheers, Roberto
____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097