Karl Auerbach wrote:
ICANN's board, because of the nominating committee process and dilution by "liasons", is composed of worthies who seem more interested in being Mr. Nice Guy than advocates for an accountable, responsible, streamlined ICANN. I have no problem with liaisons. But right now the Board is controlled by vested interests with the public having "liaison" status, when in fact it should be the other way around.
I also recall something said by Westlake, though at this moment -- away from my documents -- I don't recall whether it was formally in the report or verbally expressed. But my memory seems fairly clear about this. I distinctly remember them saying that the Board operated on a consensus level, that having At-Large advocates with votes threatened that by making Board meetings more confrontational. I recall this was offered as one of the reasons against giving the vote to At-Large board reps. It seems to me -- despite my relative youth in ICANN politics -- that this culture of consensus has simply led to governance by "what offends the least" as opposed to leadership or assertion of even its published mission. All in the interest of politeness. It's even entrenched the concept of "consensus policy" ... as if that should have some different status compared to plain old "policy". Indeed, I think some parts of ICANN are even proud of this lowest-common-denominator approach to leadership. Yet in my short time in ICANN I've come to see it as a dereliction of duty, and a total unwillingness to stand up for anything of value except unchallenged growth for its own sake. - Evan