Hello, I am still holding my card up for the need to consider the possibility of making the Law applicable to ICANN operations. Making it an international organisation would avoid such possible legal rumbles if the Board was granted immunity. I reckon it is justifiable. Still thinking...... Yassin
From: vanda@uol.com.br To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:51:37 -0300 Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
Hi Karl
The problem is legal before anything else. To allow the compensation (not salary) to the chair we did a formal legal move, consulting the court, and this was allowed because there is, really, much more burden to the chair out of the internal tasks, not demanded to the members of the board. The chair has international commitments, his presence is demanded etc. and the amount of money doesn't pay even the days he spends traveling around the world, out of the meetings. I believe that is similar in the majority of countries. Here, in Brazil, I am member of the board of 5 not for profit organizations. The organizations are not legally authorized to pay the board, only reimbursement of expenses- so I dedicate time for free. Even where I am chair of the board here, it is forbidden the payment. But even if we had a legal authorization there is no consensus inside the community about board members yet
All the best
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:50 PM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
On 08/24/2010 06:21 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
... If ICANN paid the rest of the board, like they now pay the chair, the pool of candidates would be much larger. (In case anyone's wondering, it's quite typical for large organizations to pay their board members, either a fixed annual amount, or an amount per meeting.)
I have long advocated that ICANN pay board members.
The time is *more* than a half time job - I typically spent at least 60 hours a week on ICANN matters when I was on the board.
And it is expensive.
And - and I consider this *very* important - each board member ought to have his/her own independent legal counsel. The ICANN corporate counsel owes his duty to the corporation and not to any individual board member. And the risks of being on a non-profit board are quite substantial - for instance just take a look at "intermediate sanctions" in the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions
One of the problems with paying board members is that there are California state and US Federal statutes that give degrees of immunity to directors who are not paid. Being paid may put those immunities at risk - navigating through that morass is one of those reasons why each board member needs his/her own legal counsel.
The other is that I'm not sure how electable I am, since I am from a rather over-represented geographic and ethnic group.
ICANN long ago promised as a condition of its formation that it would have a majority of its directors chosen by and accountable to the public. Were that promise ever kept there would be enough seats, if not for everyone, for at least a reasonable cross-section.
But with one seat there is a risk that the community of internet users - which is whose seat is up for selection, not the ALAC's - might be tempted to engage in internal battles. It would be good if that could be avoided.
--karl-- _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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