ICANN Board Nomination
Dear all, This is a very special moment: For many years we have been working on setting up structures to get Internet users involved in ICANN’s policy and decision making processes. After implementing RALOs in each region of the world we finally managed to (re)build a structure to have an Internet user representative on the ICANN Board with voting rights. This is a very important and responsible position. Herewith, I nominate Avri Doria to represent Internet users on the ICANN Board. She is extremely qualified to serve the interests of users on the ICANN Board. Here, I include just some of Avri's qualifications. She - worked more than 20 years in the technical side of industry. She has technical know-how and understanding of the relation between technology and policy - is dedicated and passionate about Internet users' issues and is deeply rooted in civil society. She participated in the WSIS, was a member of the Working Group on Internet Governance, member of the IGF secretariat, was coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus - knows ICANN by heart and is well-respected in the ICANN community. She served for several years as chair of the GNSO Council and community working groups (she was elected chair by the GNSO Council after being appointed to Council by the Nominating Committee). She understands both global situation and ICANN's roles and responsibilities - communicates clearly, whether by electronic or in-person communications, she can speak effectively to a variety of audiences - is persistent in advocating Internet user’s interests and relevant policies and is keen to work with the Internet users, RALOs and ALAC on ICANN policies - asks for Parity for GAC and ALAC. She wants to see ALAC advice treated in the bylaws with as much respect and response as GAC advice - stands for a culture of transparency which she wants to become the norm in ICANN. She worked with ALAC to produce the joint ALAC-NCSG letter to Board on public posting of Staff memos sent to the Board - argued against the program to pre-announce the names people planned to apply for; argued for and is co-charing the committee to find ways to assist new gTLD applicants who may not have the financial capabilities of ICANN insiders - cares about all Internet users (and potential Internet users). As a long-time developer, she works on systems for people in remote communities and takes figuring out the users' requirements as a serious activity that must involve those users - cares about capacity building. She teaches Internet Governance around the world, focusing on technical issues as well as on freedom of expression and privacy. She is a member of the core faculty of the Summer Schools on Internet Governance (ISSIG) - is member of ISOC and does a great deal of work on technical participation at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) - cares about work on closing the global divide. Co-chairs with ALAC the WG to support new gTLD applicants with funding and other assistance - has multi-lingual capacity and cultural understanding. She is well grounded in many languages, lived and worked for several years in many different countries around the world Avri is a technical person who understands policy and cares about the user perspective – and she is a nice person, really cool to work with.
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg@web.de> wrote:
Dear all,
This is a very special moment: For many years we have been working on setting up structures to get Internet users involved in ICANN’s policy and decision making processes. After implementing RALOs in each region of the world we finally managed to (re)build a structure to have an Internet user representative on the ICANN Board with voting rights. This is a very important and responsible position.
Herewith, I nominate Avri Doria to represent Internet users on the ICANN Board.
I heartily second this nomination! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
I am not a member, so I cannot second, but let me say that it seems to me a very good choice. My personal opinion is that ALAC has a lot to gain by choosing somebody like Avri with a high profile and a good reputation in the community. R.
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Annette Muehlberg Sent: Friday, 20 August 2010 23:56 To: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
Dear all,
This is a very special moment: For many years we have been working on setting up structures to get Internet users involved in ICANN's policy and decision making processes. After implementing RALOs in each region of the world we finally managed to (re)build a structure to have an Internet user representative on the ICANN Board with voting rights. This is a very important and responsible position.
Herewith, I nominate Avri Doria to represent Internet users on the ICANN Board.
She is extremely qualified to serve the interests of users on the ICANN Board. Here, I include just some of Avri's qualifications. She
- worked more than 20 years in the technical side of industry. She has technical know-how and understanding of the relation between technology and policy
- is dedicated and passionate about Internet users' issues and is deeply rooted in civil society. She participated in the WSIS, was a member of the Working Group on Internet Governance, member of the IGF secretariat, was coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus
- knows ICANN by heart and is well-respected in the ICANN community. She served for several years as chair of the GNSO Council and community working groups (she was elected chair by the GNSO Council after being appointed to Council by the Nominating Committee). She understands both global situation and ICANN's roles and responsibilities
- communicates clearly, whether by electronic or in-person communications, she can speak effectively to a variety of audiences
- is persistent in advocating Internet user's interests and relevant policies and is keen to work with the Internet users, RALOs and ALAC on ICANN policies
- asks for Parity for GAC and ALAC. She wants to see ALAC advice treated in the bylaws with as much respect and response as GAC advice
- stands for a culture of transparency which she wants to become the norm in ICANN. She worked with ALAC to produce the joint ALAC-NCSG letter to Board on public posting of Staff memos sent to the Board
- argued against the program to pre-announce the names people planned to apply for; argued for and is co-charing the committee to find ways to assist new gTLD applicants who may not have the financial capabilities of ICANN insiders
- cares about all Internet users (and potential Internet users). As a long-time developer, she works on systems for people in remote communities and takes figuring out the users' requirements as a serious activity that must involve those users
- cares about capacity building. She teaches Internet Governance around the world, focusing on technical issues as well as on freedom of expression and privacy. She is a member of the core faculty of the Summer Schools on Internet Governance (ISSIG)
- is member of ISOC and does a great deal of work on technical participation at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
- cares about work on closing the global divide. Co-chairs with ALAC the WG to support new gTLD applicants with funding and other assistance
- has multi-lingual capacity and cultural understanding. She is well grounded in many languages, lived and worked for several years in many different countries around the world
Avri is a technical person who understands policy and cares about the user perspective - and she is a nice person, really cool to work with.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
+1 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I have nothing against Avri as person because I consider her one of the most expreienced persons in the ICANN. But I have 2 comments : - I see her more a "GNSO" person and not an "ALAC" person and she has been always active in that side. - I think it is important to see in this opportunity to appoint a Board member from the ALAC to reinforce the regional presence in the ICANN Board. It is may be good for the balance to nominate someone from Africa or Asia. Khaled Le 20/08/2010 22:55, Annette Muehlberg a écrit :
Dear all,
This is a very special moment: For many years we have been working on setting up structures to get Internet users involved in ICANN’s policy and decision making processes. After implementing RALOs in each region of the world we finally managed to (re)build a structure to have an Internet user representative on the ICANN Board with voting rights. This is a very important and responsible position.
Herewith, I nominate Avri Doria to represent Internet users on the ICANN Board.
She is extremely qualified to serve the interests of users on the ICANN Board. Here, I include just some of Avri's qualifications. She
- worked more than 20 years in the technical side of industry. She has technical know-how and understanding of the relation between technology and policy
- is dedicated and passionate about Internet users' issues and is deeply rooted in civil society. She participated in the WSIS, was a member of the Working Group on Internet Governance, member of the IGF secretariat, was coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus
- knows ICANN by heart and is well-respected in the ICANN community. She served for several years as chair of the GNSO Council and community working groups (she was elected chair by the GNSO Council after being appointed to Council by the Nominating Committee). She understands both global situation and ICANN's roles and responsibilities
- communicates clearly, whether by electronic or in-person communications, she can speak effectively to a variety of audiences
- is persistent in advocating Internet user’s interests and relevant policies and is keen to work with the Internet users, RALOs and ALAC on ICANN policies
- asks for Parity for GAC and ALAC. She wants to see ALAC advice treated in the bylaws with as much respect and response as GAC advice
- stands for a culture of transparency which she wants to become the norm in ICANN. She worked with ALAC to produce the joint ALAC-NCSG letter to Board on public posting of Staff memos sent to the Board
- argued against the program to pre-announce the names people planned to apply for; argued for and is co-charing the committee to find ways to assist new gTLD applicants who may not have the financial capabilities of ICANN insiders
- cares about all Internet users (and potential Internet users). As a long-time developer, she works on systems for people in remote communities and takes figuring out the users' requirements as a serious activity that must involve those users
- cares about capacity building. She teaches Internet Governance around the world, focusing on technical issues as well as on freedom of expression and privacy. She is a member of the core faculty of the Summer Schools on Internet Governance (ISSIG)
- is member of ISOC and does a great deal of work on technical participation at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
- cares about work on closing the global divide. Co-chairs with ALAC the WG to support new gTLD applicants with funding and other assistance
- has multi-lingual capacity and cultural understanding. She is well grounded in many languages, lived and worked for several years in many different countries around the world
Avri is a technical person who understands policy and cares about the user perspective – and she is a nice person, really cool to work with.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
In benefit of everybody it would be very helpfully if somebody can make a summary about: 1. The position and profile 2. The period to serve 3. The process to nominate 4. How is the board now. I mean from a profile and geographic point of view 5. Who can nominate and the deadline to do it 6. Some other info Some help on this can facilitate the understanding of the whole process and update our own info on this issue. Carlos Vera Ecuador Mensaje enviado desde mi terminal BlackBerry® de Porta -----Original Message----- From: Khaled KOUBAA <khaled.koubaa@topnet.tn> Sender: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:12:49 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination Hi, I have nothing against Avri as person because I consider her one of the most expreienced persons in the ICANN. But I have 2 comments : - I see her more a "GNSO" person and not an "ALAC" person and she has been always active in that side. - I think it is important to see in this opportunity to appoint a Board member from the ALAC to reinforce the regional presence in the ICANN Board. It is may be good for the balance to nominate someone from Africa or Asia. Khaled Le 20/08/2010 22:55, Annette Muehlberg a écrit :
Dear all,
This is a very special moment: For many years we have been working on setting up structures to get Internet users involved in ICANN’s policy and decision making processes. After implementing RALOs in each region of the world we finally managed to (re)build a structure to have an Internet user representative on the ICANN Board with voting rights. This is a very important and responsible position.
Herewith, I nominate Avri Doria to represent Internet users on the ICANN Board.
She is extremely qualified to serve the interests of users on the ICANN Board. Here, I include just some of Avri's qualifications. She
- worked more than 20 years in the technical side of industry. She has technical know-how and understanding of the relation between technology and policy
- is dedicated and passionate about Internet users' issues and is deeply rooted in civil society. She participated in the WSIS, was a member of the Working Group on Internet Governance, member of the IGF secretariat, was coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus
- knows ICANN by heart and is well-respected in the ICANN community. She served for several years as chair of the GNSO Council and community working groups (she was elected chair by the GNSO Council after being appointed to Council by the Nominating Committee). She understands both global situation and ICANN's roles and responsibilities
- communicates clearly, whether by electronic or in-person communications, she can speak effectively to a variety of audiences
- is persistent in advocating Internet user’s interests and relevant policies and is keen to work with the Internet users, RALOs and ALAC on ICANN policies
- asks for Parity for GAC and ALAC. She wants to see ALAC advice treated in the bylaws with as much respect and response as GAC advice
- stands for a culture of transparency which she wants to become the norm in ICANN. She worked with ALAC to produce the joint ALAC-NCSG letter to Board on public posting of Staff memos sent to the Board
- argued against the program to pre-announce the names people planned to apply for; argued for and is co-charing the committee to find ways to assist new gTLD applicants who may not have the financial capabilities of ICANN insiders
- cares about all Internet users (and potential Internet users). As a long-time developer, she works on systems for people in remote communities and takes figuring out the users' requirements as a serious activity that must involve those users
- cares about capacity building. She teaches Internet Governance around the world, focusing on technical issues as well as on freedom of expression and privacy. She is a member of the core faculty of the Summer Schools on Internet Governance (ISSIG)
- is member of ISOC and does a great deal of work on technical participation at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
- cares about work on closing the global divide. Co-chairs with ALAC the WG to support new gTLD applicants with funding and other assistance
- has multi-lingual capacity and cultural understanding. She is well grounded in many languages, lived and worked for several years in many different countries around the world
Avri is a technical person who understands policy and cares about the user perspective – and she is a nice person, really cool to work with.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 20 Aug 2010, at 23:55, Annette Muehlberg wrote:
Dear all,
This is a very special moment: For many years we have been working on setting up structures to get Internet users involved in ICANN’s policy and decision making processes. After implementing RALOs in each region of the world we finally managed to (re)build a structure to have an Internet user representative on the ICANN Board with voting rights. This is a very important and responsible position.
Herewith, I nominate Avri Doria to represent Internet users on the ICANN Board.
She is extremely qualified to serve the interests of users on the ICANN Board. Here, I include just some of Avri's qualifications. She
Nothing against Avri personnally, but I thought the whole idea was to avoid choosing ICANN insiders and bring new blood to the Board. I would say we should avoid choosing anyone who has been on an AC or SO for the last 3 years (and this includes current and recent ALAC members and RALO leaders). Patrick Vande Walle
Dear Annette, Thank you very much for the nomination. I have started working on an SOI and will submit one before the deadline - and I must say I am very grateful for the extended deadline. I am very touched and appreciative of the nomination. I have been reading the comments on the Discuss list and will try to respond to them in the filling out the questionnaire. I am very happy, I must say, that the substantive sections of the questionnaire will be made public. I have long argued for this bit of transparency and am glad to see that ALAC is the first to adopt the practice of not only announcing the names of those being considered but is also publishing their statements. I wanted to make one brief comment about my being too closely associated with GNSO as I can understand how close that association still is. When I first visited an ICANN meeting in Mar de Plata, I hung out with At-large, thinking that was my natural home, I am sure several of the people on this list remember my stint as an At large groupie. I was later appointed by Nomcom to the GNSO and did my best to represent what I saw as global user interests in my first few years of that role, though once I became chair, I focused more on building consensus, the reorganization and representing the views of the GNSO to the larger community, than I did on my specific view of the user communities' interests. Since leaving the council I have been engaged in both NCSG and At-Large, two of the groups concerned strongly in user's interests - though in different ways. I joined the NCSG because I am an academic and felt there was a problem in its reorganization effort that I could help fix, and started becoming active in the At-Large because I am a member of the at large community. Should I make it so far as to be selected for the Director's role by the ALAC process, I will terminate my leadership role in the NCSG, a role I intend to terminate shortly in any case, as soon as NCSG makes it through the interim development of a charter and can elect new leadership. I admit, I am a sucker for a reorganization effort where I think I can be useful, but strongly feel that those who manage a restructuring should not lead after that restructuring. I would also guarantee to remove myself from any Board discussions and votes concerning any of the charter work I had been involved with while the chair of the NCSG executive committee. I will include a discussion of this conflict in my SOI. In any case, Annette, I thank you for the nomination and I appreciate the comments on that nomination. I hope to create an SOI that is worthy of your kind words and of the community's consideration. a. --------------------------------------- Avri Doria Adjunct Professor Luleå University of Technology avri@ltu.se Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t On 20 Aug 2010, at 17:55, Annette Muehlberg wrote:
Dear all,
This is a very special moment: For many years we have been working on setting up structures to get Internet users involved in ICANN’s policy and decision making processes. After implementing RALOs in each region of the world we finally managed to (re)build a structure to have an Internet user representative on the ICANN Board with voting rights. This is a very important and responsible position.
Herewith, I nominate Avri Doria to represent Internet users on the ICANN Board.
She is extremely qualified to serve the interests of users on the ICANN Board. Here, I include just some of Avri's qualifications. She
- worked more than 20 years in the technical side of industry. She has technical know-how and understanding of the relation between technology and policy
- is dedicated and passionate about Internet users' issues and is deeply rooted in civil society. She participated in the WSIS, was a member of the Working Group on Internet Governance, member of the IGF secretariat, was coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus
- knows ICANN by heart and is well-respected in the ICANN community. She served for several years as chair of the GNSO Council and community working groups (she was elected chair by the GNSO Council after being appointed to Council by the Nominating Committee). She understands both global situation and ICANN's roles and responsibilities
- communicates clearly, whether by electronic or in-person communications, she can speak effectively to a variety of audiences
- is persistent in advocating Internet user’s interests and relevant policies and is keen to work with the Internet users, RALOs and ALAC on ICANN policies
- asks for Parity for GAC and ALAC. She wants to see ALAC advice treated in the bylaws with as much respect and response as GAC advice
- stands for a culture of transparency which she wants to become the norm in ICANN. She worked with ALAC to produce the joint ALAC-NCSG letter to Board on public posting of Staff memos sent to the Board
- argued against the program to pre-announce the names people planned to apply for; argued for and is co-charing the committee to find ways to assist new gTLD applicants who may not have the financial capabilities of ICANN insiders
- cares about all Internet users (and potential Internet users). As a long-time developer, she works on systems for people in remote communities and takes figuring out the users' requirements as a serious activity that must involve those users
- cares about capacity building. She teaches Internet Governance around the world, focusing on technical issues as well as on freedom of expression and privacy. She is a member of the core faculty of the Summer Schools on Internet Governance (ISSIG)
- is member of ISOC and does a great deal of work on technical participation at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
- cares about work on closing the global divide. Co-chairs with ALAC the WG to support new gTLD applicants with funding and other assistance
- has multi-lingual capacity and cultural understanding. She is well grounded in many languages, lived and worked for several years in many different countries around the world
Avri is a technical person who understands policy and cares about the user perspective – and she is a nice person, really cool to work with.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
My main concern for a board nominee is to find someone with the personal and organizational skills to be effective. ICANN's board has long standing problems both with internal dysfunction and a chronic inability to supervise the staff. To pick a couple of obvious examples, the board has never spent the two minutes to pass a motion to appoint an ombudsman as required by the bylaws (preferably someone other than Frank), and although I don't have any direct insight into the dithering over .XXX, I got the impression of a group that couldn't come up with a process to lead to a result. Avri's background is great, but I don't think I know her well enough to say how she'd do in this particular maelstrom. R's, John
Hi, John, would you consider to run for this? You would be a great candidate. Have a second thought. Hong On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:46 AM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
My main concern for a board nominee is to find someone with the personal and organizational skills to be effective. ICANN's board has long standing problems both with internal dysfunction and a chronic inability to supervise the staff. To pick a couple of obvious examples, the board has never spent the two minutes to pass a motion to appoint an ombudsman as required by the bylaws (preferably someone other than Frank), and although I don't have any direct insight into the dithering over .XXX, I got the impression of a group that couldn't come up with a process to lead to a result.
Avri's background is great, but I don't think I know her well enough to say how she'd do in this particular maelstrom.
R's, John _______________________________________________ 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
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
Hi, John, would you consider to run for this? You would be a great candidate. Have a second thought.
Thanks, I'd consider it, but I have two reservations. One is that it's a huge time commitment, on the order of a half time job, and since I don't have an employer to subsidize me, I'm not sure I can afford the time. 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.) The other is that I'm not sure how electable I am, since I am from a rather over-represented geographic and ethnic group. R's, John
My main concern for a board nominee is to find someone with the personal and organizational skills to be effective. ICANN's board has long standing problems both with internal dysfunction and a chronic inability to supervise the staff. To pick a couple of obvious examples, the board has never spent the two minutes to pass a motion to appoint an ombudsman as required by the bylaws (preferably someone other than Frank), and although I don't have any direct insight into the dithering over .XXX, I got the impression of a group that couldn't come up with a process to lead to a result.
Avri's background is great, but I don't think I know her well enough to say how she'd do in this particular maelstrom.
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--
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
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
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.
Hmmn. I see why Karl says that board members need their own lawyers. Anyone who told you that it was difficult to pay the directors of a California non-profit was at best misinformed. The California not-for-profit law makes it quite clear that directors can be paid. The main rules are that the full board, not just a committee, must set the compensation (Section 5212(a)(3)), and that the compensation be reasonable (Section 5235(a)), which considering how large ICANN is, and how much work it expects of its directors, would never be a problem for any plausible amount of pay. R's, John
Rules like x times minimum wage in California, allows to make the pay simple and not escalating by self serving board members. Also, he does not stop anyone on the board to refuse the compensation, for various reason. I support the idea of the board to be compensated for their work, if it allows the ability to bring more candidates to the positions. Don't forget, at the moment, if I'm correct the board members are reimbursed their costs to be on the board (trip+hotel+meal). ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, 26 August, 2010 12:56:21 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
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.
Hmmn. I see why Karl says that board members need their own lawyers. Anyone who told you that it was difficult to pay the directors of a California non-profit was at best misinformed. The California not-for-profit law makes it quite clear that directors can be paid. The main rules are that the full board, not just a committee, must set the compensation (Section 5212(a)(3)), and that the compensation be reasonable (Section 5235(a)), which considering how large ICANN is, and how much work it expects of its directors, would never be a problem for any plausible amount of pay. R's, John _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Franck I am not sure if I understood - are you saying there is an special rule in California that allows not for profit organization to pay their board members let's say 2 minimum local salaries, as something else not considered real compensation of these members? Since I am not English native is that correct? Thanks for explain 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 Franck Martin Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:07 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination Rules like x times minimum wage in California, allows to make the pay simple and not escalating by self serving board members. Also, he does not stop anyone on the board to refuse the compensation, for various reason. I support the idea of the board to be compensated for their work, if it allows the ability to bring more candidates to the positions. Don't forget, at the moment, if I'm correct the board members are reimbursed their costs to be on the board (trip+hotel+meal). ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, 26 August, 2010 12:56:21 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
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.
Hmmn. I see why Karl says that board members need their own lawyers. Anyone who told you that it was difficult to pay the directors of a California non-profit was at best misinformed. The California not-for-profit law makes it quite clear that directors can be paid. The main rules are that the full board, not just a committee, must set the compensation (Section 5212(a)(3)), and that the compensation be reasonable (Section 5235(a)), which considering how large ICANN is, and how much work it expects of its directors, would never be a problem for any plausible amount of pay. R's, John _______________________________________________ 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
No, there is no such rule, but California has a minimum wage (which is a bit above US federal minimum wage), and I thought fixing the compensation as factor of the minimum wage, allow the compensation to change if they change the minimum wage due to increase of cost of living. What I fear, if you don't use such a rule, is that successive boards will slowly increase this compensation until it is not reasonable, or that due to community pressure not touch it, and make it unattractive. The other part interesting in compensating the board for its work, is that it may allow board members to work outside board meetings. I have seen in various groups, you read documents, etc... only during group meetings... but that's ethics issues, and not sure compensation can really change that. Also, remember there were graph of attendance of people at the various boards and workgroup meeting in ICANN. May be this compensation is trying to fix the poor attendance of some, starting at the top...? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vanda UOL" <vanda@uol.com.br> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, 27 August, 2010 5:10:11 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination Hi Franck I am not sure if I understood - are you saying there is an special rule in California that allows not for profit organization to pay their board members let's say 2 minimum local salaries, as something else not considered real compensation of these members? Since I am not English native is that correct? Thanks for explain best Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464
Thanks. If once we get legal chance to compensate board task your suggestion will be very useful and I will send it to the board as an idea to be kept in mind. Thanks for take the time to explain it. 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 Franck Martin Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:38 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination No, there is no such rule, but California has a minimum wage (which is a bit above US federal minimum wage), and I thought fixing the compensation as factor of the minimum wage, allow the compensation to change if they change the minimum wage due to increase of cost of living. What I fear, if you don't use such a rule, is that successive boards will slowly increase this compensation until it is not reasonable, or that due to community pressure not touch it, and make it unattractive. The other part interesting in compensating the board for its work, is that it may allow board members to work outside board meetings. I have seen in various groups, you read documents, etc... only during group meetings... but that's ethics issues, and not sure compensation can really change that. Also, remember there were graph of attendance of people at the various boards and workgroup meeting in ICANN. May be this compensation is trying to fix the poor attendance of some, starting at the top...? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vanda UOL" <vanda@uol.com.br> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, 27 August, 2010 5:10:11 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination Hi Franck I am not sure if I understood - are you saying there is an special rule in California that allows not for profit organization to pay their board members let's say 2 minimum local salaries, as something else not considered real compensation of these members? Since I am not English native is that correct? Thanks for explain best Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi,It is good to notice how the the discussion is going.......ignoring some suggestions is the way forward..? So openly ?Kindly. Yassin
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:37:49 +1200 From: franck.martin@gmail.com To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
No, there is no such rule, but California has a minimum wage (which is a bit above US federal minimum wage), and I thought fixing the compensation as factor of the minimum wage, allow the compensation to change if they change the minimum wage due to increase of cost of living. What I fear, if you don't use such a rule, is that successive boards will slowly increase this compensation until it is not reasonable, or that due to community pressure not touch it, and make it unattractive.
The other part interesting in compensating the board for its work, is that it may allow board members to work outside board meetings. I have seen in various groups, you read documents, etc... only during group meetings... but that's ethics issues, and not sure compensation can really change that.
Also, remember there were graph of attendance of people at the various boards and workgroup meeting in ICANN. May be this compensation is trying to fix the poor attendance of some, starting at the top...?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Vanda UOL" <vanda@uol.com.br> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, 27 August, 2010 5:10:11 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
Hi Franck I am not sure if I understood - are you saying there is an special rule in California that allows not for profit organization to pay their board members let's say 2 minimum local salaries, as something else not considered real compensation of these members? Since I am not English native is that correct? Thanks for explain best
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464
_______________________________________________ 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
No, there is no such rule, but California has a minimum wage (which is a bit above US federal minimum wage), ...
I wouldn't see that as a useful way to set an adequate level of compensation for board members. As it currently stands, to be on the ICANN board, one either needs to have an employer who is willing to pay for the time spent on board work, or else be independently wealthy enough (or I suppose have a spouse with enough income) to subsidize oneself. If ICANN wants to expand the pool of board members to include people outside those two categories, it either needs to drastically slash the amount of time it asks of board members (not unreasonable, no other non-profit I know asks a fraction of what ICANN does), or else pay them enough to make up for the lost income. For the calibre of people I'd hope to attract, that'd would be something upwards of $50,000/yr. If we guess that half the board would accept pay, that'd be $500,000/yr, not a big number in a $65 million budget. If they want really good board members, they should offer $100K. R's, John
On 08/26/2010 09:43 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
If ICANN wants to expand the pool of board members to include people outside those two categories, it either needs to drastically slash the amount of time it asks of board members
The best way to do that would be for ICANN to reconsider its role as regulatory body over economic and social matters and pick up its self-described role as a mere coordinator of matters reasonably relevant to technical stability of DNS name resolution. When I was on the board (2003 time frame) a couple of us chatted about how much it cost to be on the board. The rough number was that we were losing roughly $300,000 per year in terms of lost direct income and lost opportunity income. The ratio of direct/opportunity loss varied significantly by individual. The computed cost was roughly proportional to the degree of engagement - passive members who were mainly "goers" (i.e. did little more than attend meetings) had lower costs. More active members ("doers") had significantly higher costs. It's been my observation that ICANN needs more "doer" directors than "goer" directors. One method of compensating directors would not be to pay them directly but, rather, for ICANN to provide a fund for each director that could be drawn upon to cover certain well defined (and limited) costs - such as clerical support or some coverage of independent legal or accounting advice. --karl--
I remember this discussion from the open discussion in Nairobi. There were definitely two "camps". The big concern that if there was reasonable "pay" to be on the board, they would only get people that were in it for the money. The subject of equitable remuneration for actual expenses and extra support (like Karl is suggesting) also came up but nothing was decided at that time. I, personally, think that the remuneration idea would be most appropriate but I'm still on the fence. D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Karl Auerbach Sent: Fri 8/27/2010 5:17 AM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination On 08/26/2010 09:43 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
If ICANN wants to expand the pool of board members to include people outside those two categories, it either needs to drastically slash the amount of time it asks of board members
The best way to do that would be for ICANN to reconsider its role as regulatory body over economic and social matters and pick up its self-described role as a mere coordinator of matters reasonably relevant to technical stability of DNS name resolution. When I was on the board (2003 time frame) a couple of us chatted about how much it cost to be on the board. The rough number was that we were losing roughly $300,000 per year in terms of lost direct income and lost opportunity income. The ratio of direct/opportunity loss varied significantly by individual. The computed cost was roughly proportional to the degree of engagement - passive members who were mainly "goers" (i.e. did little more than attend meetings) had lower costs. More active members ("doers") had significantly higher costs. It's been my observation that ICANN needs more "doer" directors than "goer" directors. One method of compensating directors would not be to pay them directly but, rather, for ICANN to provide a fund for each director that could be drawn upon to cover certain well defined (and limited) costs - such as clerical support or some coverage of independent legal or accounting advice. --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 <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
It's been my observation that ICANN needs more "doer" directors than "goer" directors.
Amen. IMHO, even if you pay $100K you won't attract the kind of director ICANN needs, many in the ICANN sphere have dedicated years to build the eco-system from where they and their backers feed. I'd love to see more than 50% of the directors being really independent and out of the ICANN-sphere. Until that happens we keep playing the dancing chairs game. My .02 Jorge
Unless there is a system like Jury Duty, you will only have at the ICANN board, people who are interested by ICANN matters (the ICANN sphere). So let's not live in an utopia. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jorge Amodio" <jmamodio@gmail.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Saturday, 28 August, 2010 8:59:54 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
It's been my observation that ICANN needs more "doer" directors than "goer" directors.
Amen. IMHO, even if you pay $100K you won't attract the kind of director ICANN needs, many in the ICANN sphere have dedicated years to build the eco-system from where they and their backers feed. I'd love to see more than 50% of the directors being really independent and out of the ICANN-sphere. Until that happens we keep playing the dancing chairs game. My .02 Jorge _______________________________________________ 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
On 08/27/2010 03:57 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Unless there is a system like Jury Duty, you will only have at the ICANN board, people who are interested by ICANN matters (the ICANN sphere).
The key word is "interested". For the most part in the word of ICANN "interested" means financially interested - which ICANN covers with the smoke and mirrors phrase "stakeholder". Those of us who are interested in the idea that natural people are the atomic unit of governance from which all authority flows find ourselves "interested" in a non-financial way. I see from this list and also my my other contacts that those of us with that kind of interest are many and are found in all nations. I would assert that our numbers are greater than those who have a mere financial interest in internet governance. I see ICANN as a model, for good or ill, of future institutions of authority. (I don't care whether the word is "governance" or "government" - to my mind the differences are irrelevant to these questions.) And as a model I fear greatly the fact that these models encourage and empower those with financial "interest" and hinder those with other kinds of "interest". I view ICANN as a cauldron in which competing "interests" are at near-war with one another. I don't accept the "nice guy" theory of internet governance. In that cauldron I want the public board members to be smooth warriors in which skill with the political iron hammer is as important as silent skill with the diplomatic silken cord. I want our Othello to have a touch of Iago. My concern about the ALAC system's dominant role in the seating of the one public director is that I perceive the proposed mechanism as being one that will seat people whose skills are more balanced toward nice agreement than bloody battle. One way to redress my concern is to alleviate, even if only a small part, the financial stress that will be felt by those who are not driven to ICANN by a financially "interest". --karl--
Hello Franck, not so sure: looking at NomCom applications, whilst a lot of applications were from the "usual suspects", there were also a lot of new names and people who wished to assume a leadership position at ICANN. ICANN is increasingly seen as an interesting experiment in multi-stakeholder participation - not only something of interest if you have a direct stake in domain names. I despair to hear everybody saying "ICANN needs this, ICANN needs that" and finding out that so few people out there are doing real outreach - because outreach is the key to more people being interested in ICANN, and outreach, in my opinion, should not be function solely done by the RALO heads, secretaries & committee members of ALAC. Outreach is something which everybody in At Large should be doing. Until we all speak out, and take every opportunity possible to communicate the mission we have defined ourselves, at conferences, IGF, meetings, at industry events and parties and even with people we meet on aircraft around the world, we'll have a high likelyhood of finding the usual suspects applying for ICANN leadership positions. Until then, our world will not reach further than the other edge of our teacup. :-) Kind regards, Olivier Le 28/08/2010 00:57, Franck Martin a écrit :
Unless there is a system like Jury Duty, you will only have at the ICANN board, people who are interested by ICANN matters (the ICANN sphere).
So let's not live in an utopia.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jorge Amodio" <jmamodio@gmail.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Saturday, 28 August, 2010 8:59:54 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
It's been my observation that ICANN needs more "doer" directors than "goer" directors. Amen.
IMHO, even if you pay $100K you won't attract the kind of director ICANN needs, many in the ICANN sphere have dedicated years to build the eco-system from where they and their backers feed.
I'd love to see more than 50% of the directors being really independent and out of the ICANN-sphere.
Until that happens we keep playing the dancing chairs game.
My .02 Jorge _______________________________________________ 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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On 30 August 2010 09:29, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
I despair to hear everybody saying "ICANN needs this, ICANN needs that" and finding out that so few people out there are doing real outreach - because outreach is the key to more people being interested in ICANN, and outreach, in my opinion, should not be function solely done by the RALO heads, secretaries & committee members of ALAC. Outreach is something which everybody in At Large should be doing.
At the risk of being a partial source of your despair, I agree with you while saying that there's even more to it than that: - Outreach is ultimately a shared responsibility that requires ICANN's active support. There is a limit to what volunteers can do to help translate what goes on at ICANN into not only other languages, but also clear language that does not require the reader to be an Internet expert. Some good progress has been made but IMO this is more an issue of culture than resources - At ALAC meetings and within NARALO I have often spoken about "inreach" as much as outreach. Retaining the interest (let alone ethusiasm) of those who have made the decision to get involved can be as challenging as attracting newcomers. When our recommendations are carefully crafted and achieve a global consensus yet are still ignored by ICANN staff and other stakeholders, it is demoralizing; when this happens, some within At-Large wonder why they bother, while cynics claim that the whole At-Large infrastructure is nothing more than an expensive (but necessary to ICANN's image) charade. At-Large is still a fairly new construct but it needs mainstream respect from the rest of ICANN. The complete ignorance of our views on the DAG, the resistance to implement all recommendations of the Board's own ALAC Review and the marginalization of our input to important committees, indicate that this respect is still elusive. Thankfully, tangible-yet-glacial progress is apparent -- such progress, I would suggest, is the main attraction to those of us optimists who continue to stay involved. The desire to stay involved in ICANN and persevere through what At-Large has endured is, IMO an admirable quality and one that would serve an At-Large-selected Director well. - Evan
On 08/30/2010 01:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 30 August 2010 09:29, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl@gih.com> wrote:
- Outreach is ultimately a shared responsibility that requires ICANN's active support.
I very much disagree. If ICANN allowed the public a role that had merit and strength then there would be an overflow of interest and participation - we saw that happen in year 2000. And we see that happen for the industrial "stakeholder" inside ICANN that there is no shortage of participatory people and energy. That's because those industrial interests have "a stake" whereas ICANN has made sure that natural people who use the net are over-categorized, over-grouped, and over-managed into impotency. Put the promised 50%+ of ICANN's board seats up for public election from slates of candidates who need pass no insider nomination process and I guarantee you that the public participation in ICANN would go up by many orders of decimal magnitude. ICANN's "reform" of year 2002 and 2003 was intentionally designed to debilitate the public in ICANN. It has worked. --karl--
Hello Karl, Le 30/08/2010 22:54, Karl Auerbach a écrit :
Put the promised 50%+ of ICANN's board seats up for public election from slates of candidates who need pass no insider nomination process and I guarantee you that the public participation in ICANN would go up by many orders of decimal magnitude.
Over 50% of the Board seats are selected by NOMCOM. Anyone can apply. Add the At Large Director seat, and whilst it's not a direct public election either, it looks to me like a process that cannot be captured as easily as direct elections (which is what led to the reform in the first place). Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On 08/30/2010 02:25 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Le 30/08/2010 22:54, Karl Auerbach a écrit :
Put the promised 50%+ of ICANN's board seats up for public election from slates of candidates who need pass no insider nomination process and I guarantee you that the public participation in ICANN would go up by many orders of decimal magnitude.
Over 50% of the Board seats are selected by NOMCOM. Anyone can apply. Add the At Large Director seat, and whilst it's not a direct public election either, it looks to me like a process that cannot be captured as easily as direct elections (which is what led to the reform in the first place).
The "nominating committee" - It ought to have its name corrected because it "appoints" rather than "nominates". That body, although it has made nice selections (and I use the word "nice" with all of its English ambiguous nuance), that committee has essentially been like one of those barrels that one uses to polish stones - neither stone nor person comes out with any edge or sharpness. Like most such committees the choices are compromises made by people who obtained their seats on the committee largely because they are status-quo oriented in the first place - thus a tendency for like to "nominate" like. The community of internet users, like most bodies of natural people, ought to have the power to chose who it wishes, even if those people are of the nature that would cause a nominating committee to choke. ICANN's system - including the nominating committee - was designed with the specific intent of keeping out the noisy riff-raff who might question the status quo - people like me. And, going back the the prior point - the reason why people are staying out of ICANN and the ALAC in droves is precisely because of the isolation between those people and ICANN that results from the intervention of the "nominating" committee and the ALAC+RALO+ALS system. Sleeping Beauty's prince had a better chance to get through that thicket of thorns than internet users have to exercise their will through the multilayer armor of ICANN's ALAC+RALO+ALS. Give the community of internet users a "stake" and power to have effect within ICANN comparable to that of Verisign or PIR or the trademark community and people would participate just as they did in the hundreds of thousands in year 2000. ICANN's has legal existence explicitly to serve the public interest. It is sad that such a thick firewall has been erected by ICANN against that public from having any but a highly filtered and derivative role. Many, perhaps most, people will not step off the sidewalk to pick up a penny in the gutter - they perceive the value to be too small to be worth getting their hands and clothes dirty. The same equation - too little value to justify even a small risk - that is what is keeping internet users out of ICANN. --karl--
On 31/08/2010 00:18, Karl Auerbach wrote : (about the Nominating Committee, which I agree is inaptly named)
Like most such committees the choices are compromises made by people who obtained their seats on the committee largely because they are status-quo oriented in the first place - thus a tendency for like to "nominate" like.
I can't speak for other years, but that has not been my experience this year, Karl. Perhaps the committee, like ALAC, is maturing with time, and gaining confidence?
The community of internet users, like most bodies of natural people, ought to have the power to chose who it wishes, even if those people are of the nature that would cause a nominating committee to choke.
ICANN's system - including the nominating committee - was designed with the specific intent of keeping out the noisy riff-raff who might question the status quo - people like me.
...and unless people who would cause a nominating committee to choke don't apply, they stand no chance of being selected. Sometimes, you need to have more faith in a system than it appears at first glance. We're all playing for the same side - the "enemy" is elsewhere. Kindest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Karl: I always find your posts thought-provoking and want to hone in on your assertion that if allocated a role with merit and strength in ICANN, there would be an overflow of participation. Maybe you're right. Evan outlined how dispiriting it is when those of us in At-Large - for better or worse still a part of the deserving public - take ICANN at its word, get involved and make meritorious suggestions after studying the issues that are blithely ignored. Yes, we work. I guess the fissure is a common understanding, if not perception. of what "public" means. You speak of the pre-2000 "public" with some nostalgia and implied it was a time of great hubba-hubba in public participation. Mind you, a lot of us who are now involved were probably not counted as part of the deserving public then. I daresay a lot less of us. Especially those of us at the edge of empire. Kind regards. Carlton ============================= On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 30 August 2010 09:29, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl@gih.com> wrote:
- Outreach is ultimately a shared responsibility that requires ICANN's active support.
I very much disagree.
If ICANN allowed the public a role that had merit and strength then there would be an overflow of interest and participation - we saw that happen in year 2000.
And we see that happen for the industrial "stakeholder" inside ICANN that there is no shortage of participatory people and energy. That's because those industrial interests have "a stake" whereas ICANN has made sure that natural people who use the net are over-categorized, over-grouped, and over-managed into impotency.
Put the promised 50%+ of ICANN's board seats up for public election from slates of candidates who need pass no insider nomination process and I guarantee you that the public participation in ICANN would go up by many orders of decimal magnitude.
ICANN's "reform" of year 2002 and 2003 was intentionally designed to debilitate the public in ICANN. It has worked.
--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
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 04:52 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Karl: I always find your posts thought-provoking and want to hone in on your assertion that if allocated a role with merit and strength in ICANN, there would be an overflow of participation. Maybe you're right.
Evan outlined how dispiriting it is when those of us in At-Large - for better or worse still a part of the deserving public - take ICANN at its word, get involved and make meritorious suggestions after studying the issues that are blithely ignored. Yes, we work.
I guess the fissure is a common understanding, if not perception. of what "public" means.
You speak of the pre-2000 "public" with some nostalgia and implied it was a time of great hubba-hubba in public participation.
Mind you, a lot of us who are now involved were probably not counted as part of the deserving public then.
I daresay a lot less of us. Especially those of us at the edge of empire.
Kind regards.
Carlton
Hi Carlton, Now that you mention issues of exclusion and inclusion, let me say, the real edges of the 'empire' is still nowhere close to being covered/ included, as a legitimate/ deserving 'public', for the public policies that ICANN plus makes. Yes, the (somewhat upper) middle classes in developing countries, (their interests, and those representing their interests) may be slowing creeping in across the edges, but not the marginalized sections, who are still the large majority in developing countries. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, these sections are simply not in a position to engage directly with and represent themselves through the various online platforms that ICANN's participative model largely consists of. They just have to be represented - however under-optimally - by organized groups and organizations that purport to represent their interests. ICANN is nowhere close to engaging with these groups/ organizations, in any fruitful manner. Empowered individuals who can successfully navigate the difficult online space, with multiple technical and social exclusions, are still what constitutes ICANN's 'public' wherefrom it seeks the basis of its legitimacy. The real public however is a much more complex, diverse and multilayered category, something which one wishes ICANN and those who engage with it began to understand. That would be basic to obtaining the degree of legitimacy that ICANN seeks, and finds often refused by what I think is the majority of people. Parminder
=============================
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Karl Auerbach<karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 30 August 2010 09:29, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl@gih.com> wrote:
- Outreach is ultimately a shared responsibility that requires ICANN's active support.
I very much disagree.
If ICANN allowed the public a role that had merit and strength then there would be an overflow of interest and participation - we saw that happen in year 2000.
And we see that happen for the industrial "stakeholder" inside ICANN that there is no shortage of participatory people and energy. That's because those industrial interests have "a stake" whereas ICANN has made sure that natural people who use the net are over-categorized, over-grouped, and over-managed into impotency.
Put the promised 50%+ of ICANN's board seats up for public election from slates of candidates who need pass no insider nomination process and I guarantee you that the public participation in ICANN would go up by many orders of decimal magnitude.
ICANN's "reform" of year 2002 and 2003 was intentionally designed to debilitate the public in ICANN. It has worked.
--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
Especially considering that these people were made to believe ITU was the one in(to be in) charge of these issues Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question On 31/08/2010, at 17:47, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 04:52 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Karl: I always find your posts thought-provoking and want to hone in on your assertion that if allocated a role with merit and strength in ICANN, there would be an overflow of participation. Maybe you're right.
Evan outlined how dispiriting it is when those of us in At-Large - for better or worse still a part of the deserving public - take ICANN at its word, get involved and make meritorious suggestions after studying the issues that are blithely ignored. Yes, we work.
I guess the fissure is a common understanding, if not perception. of what "public" means.
You speak of the pre-2000 "public" with some nostalgia and implied it was a time of great hubba-hubba in public participation.
Mind you, a lot of us who are now involved were probably not counted as part of the deserving public then.
I daresay a lot less of us. Especially those of us at the edge of empire.
Kind regards.
Carlton
Hi Carlton,
Now that you mention issues of exclusion and inclusion, let me say, the real edges of the 'empire' is still nowhere close to being covered/ included, as a legitimate/ deserving 'public', for the public policies that ICANN plus makes.
Yes, the (somewhat upper) middle classes in developing countries, (their interests, and those representing their interests) may be slowing creeping in across the edges, but not the marginalized sections, who are still the large majority in developing countries. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, these sections are simply not in a position to engage directly with and represent themselves through the various online platforms that ICANN's participative model largely consists of. They just have to be represented - however under-optimally - by organized groups and organizations that purport to represent their interests. ICANN is nowhere close to engaging with these groups/ organizations, in any fruitful manner.
Empowered individuals who can successfully navigate the difficult online space, with multiple technical and social exclusions, are still what constitutes ICANN's 'public' wherefrom it seeks the basis of its legitimacy. The real public however is a much more complex, diverse and multilayered category, something which one wishes ICANN and those who engage with it began to understand. That would be basic to obtaining the degree of legitimacy that ICANN seeks, and finds often refused by what I think is the majority of people.
Parminder
=============================
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Karl Auerbach<karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 30 August 2010 09:29, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl@gih.com> wrote:
- Outreach is ultimately a shared responsibility that requires ICANN's active support.
I very much disagree.
If ICANN allowed the public a role that had merit and strength then there would be an overflow of interest and participation - we saw that happen in year 2000.
And we see that happen for the industrial "stakeholder" inside ICANN that there is no shortage of participatory people and energy. That's because those industrial interests have "a stake" whereas ICANN has made sure that natural people who use the net are over-categorized, over-grouped, and over-managed into impotency.
Put the promised 50%+ of ICANN's board seats up for public election from slates of candidates who need pass no insider nomination process and I guarantee you that the public participation in ICANN would go up by many orders of decimal magnitude.
ICANN's "reform" of year 2002 and 2003 was intentionally designed to debilitate the public in ICANN. It has worked.
--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
_______________________________________________ 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
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 11:26 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
Especially considering that these people were made to believe ITU was the one in(to be in) charge of these issues
"Love ICANN, or you are ITU" :), wonder how a whole ideology and practice of Internet Governance could so successfully be built around a single straw man.
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question
Have just no idea what this means. Why would you not use English in response to an English posting. I have barely learnt passable English as a third language. Apologies for it but I could not indulge my linguistic faculties any further to acquaint myself with French expressions even if they may get stylistically used in superior English :) . Parminder
On 31/08/2010, at 17:47, parminder<parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 04:52 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Karl: I always find your posts thought-provoking and want to hone in on your assertion that if allocated a role with merit and strength in ICANN, there would be an overflow of participation. Maybe you're right.
Evan outlined how dispiriting it is when those of us in At-Large - for better or worse still a part of the deserving public - take ICANN at its word, get involved and make meritorious suggestions after studying the issues that are blithely ignored. Yes, we work.
I guess the fissure is a common understanding, if not perception. of what "public" means.
You speak of the pre-2000 "public" with some nostalgia and implied it was a time of great hubba-hubba in public participation.
Mind you, a lot of us who are now involved were probably not counted as part of the deserving public then.
I daresay a lot less of us. Especially those of us at the edge of empire.
Kind regards.
Carlton
Hi Carlton,
Now that you mention issues of exclusion and inclusion, let me say, the real edges of the 'empire' is still nowhere close to being covered/ included, as a legitimate/ deserving 'public', for the public policies that ICANN plus makes.
Yes, the (somewhat upper) middle classes in developing countries, (their interests, and those representing their interests) may be slowing creeping in across the edges, but not the marginalized sections, who are still the large majority in developing countries. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, these sections are simply not in a position to engage directly with and represent themselves through the various online platforms that ICANN's participative model largely consists of. They just have to be represented - however under-optimally - by organized groups and organizations that purport to represent their interests. ICANN is nowhere close to engaging with these groups/ organizations, in any fruitful manner.
Empowered individuals who can successfully navigate the difficult online space, with multiple technical and social exclusions, are still what constitutes ICANN's 'public' wherefrom it seeks the basis of its legitimacy. The real public however is a much more complex, diverse and multilayered category, something which one wishes ICANN and those who engage with it began to understand. That would be basic to obtaining the degree of legitimacy that ICANN seeks, and finds often refused by what I think is the majority of people.
Parminder
=============================
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Karl Auerbach<karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 30 August 2010 09:29, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl@gih.com> wrote:
- Outreach is ultimately a shared responsibility that requires ICANN's active support.
I very much disagree.
If ICANN allowed the public a role that had merit and strength then there would be an overflow of interest and participation - we saw that happen in year 2000.
And we see that happen for the industrial "stakeholder" inside ICANN that there is no shortage of participatory people and energy. That's because those industrial interests have "a stake" whereas ICANN has made sure that natural people who use the net are over-categorized, over-grouped, and over-managed into impotency.
Put the promised 50%+ of ICANN's board seats up for public election from slates of candidates who need pass no insider nomination process and I guarantee you that the public participation in ICANN would go up by many orders of decimal magnitude.
ICANN's "reform" of year 2002 and 2003 was intentionally designed to debilitate the public in ICANN. It has worked.
--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
_______________________________________________ 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
----- Original Message -----
From: "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August, 2010 6:51:09 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination On Tuesday 31 August 2010 11:26 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
Especially considering that these people were made to believe ITU was the one in(to be in) charge of these issues
"Love ICANN, or you are ITU" :), wonder how a whole ideology and practice of Internet Governance could so successfully be built around a single straw man.
Yes, that's what people think, that ICANN is in charge of everything on the Internet, while they are in charge of so little...
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question
Have just no idea what this means. Why would you not use English in response to an English posting. I have barely learnt passable English as a third language. Apologies for it but I could not indulge my linguistic faculties any further to acquaint myself with French expressions even if they may get stylistically used in superior English :) . Parminder
LOL Someone will translate for you, I'm sure... ;) It is my signature when I'm on the move... nothing specific to this thread, but now thinking of it....
On 2010-08-31, at 9:16 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
Yes, that's what people think, that ICANN is in charge of everything on the Internet, while they are in charge of so little...
It would be nice were they to at least take responsibility for those areas that they are responsible, like rogue registrars, abuse of the domain system, and so on. I hear tell ICANN are being called onto the carpet by the Whitehouse; perhaps this will lead to some long overdue action: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2010/08/white-house-calls-meeting-on-rogue-online...
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question
Have just no idea what this means. Why would you not use English in response to an English posting. I have barely learnt passable English as a third language. Apologies for it but I could not indulge my linguistic faculties any further to acquaint myself with French expressions even if they may get stylistically used in superior English :) . Parminder
LOL
Someone will translate for you, I'm sure... ;) It is my signature when I'm on the move... nothing specific to this thread, but now thinking of it....
Literally 'All knowledge is a response to a question' the longer quote is, 'For a scientific spirit, all knowledge is a response to a question, if there is no question posed, there will be no knowledge' -- Neil Schwartzman Executive Director CAUCE The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, North America Inc. http://cauce.org http://twitter.com/cauce AIM: caucecanada Tel.: +1 (303) 800 6345
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Schwartzman" <neil@cauce.org> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August, 2010 7:31:41 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination On 2010-08-31, at 9:16 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
Yes, that's what people think, that ICANN is in charge of everything on the Internet, while they are in charge of so little...
It would be nice were they to at least take responsibility for those areas that they are responsible, like rogue registrars, abuse of the domain system, and so on.
Without forgetting that the whois of names is a disgrace... The whois of IPs is not too, too bad, because there are few repository organisations that talk to each others rather well...
On 2010-08-31, at 10:15 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Schwartzman" <neil@cauce.org> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August, 2010 7:31:41 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination On 2010-08-31, at 9:16 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
Yes, that's what people think, that ICANN is in charge of everything on the Internet, while they are in charge of so little...
It would be nice were they to at least take responsibility for those areas that they are responsible, like rogue registrars, abuse of the domain system, and so on.
Without forgetting that the whois of names is a disgrace...
The whois of IPs is not too, too bad, because there are few repository organisations that talk to each others rather well...
There are those that would disagree, but certainly with the current administration, lead by someone who has deep knowledge of and great experience dealing with net abuse (Paul Vixie), ARIn has been getting much better. That said, Scott Richter, for example, was trivially able to illicitly access IP-space. Not to go to the Kreb's well too often, but : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/04/a_case_of_network_identit... That would be the same Scott Richter, convicted criminal and recidivist spammer (1), who owns the Dynamic Dolphin registrar. Of course, now he is doing Facebook apps under the label Lunatic Games, so he won't be troubling the world with spam, right? (1) MySpace won a $6 mil decision against Richter in 2009 http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/147159/former_spam_king_must_p... -- Neil Schwartzman Executive Director CAUCE The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, North America Inc. http://cauce.org http://twitter.com/cauce AIM: caucecanada Tel.: +1 (303) 800 6345
Apologies, hit 'send' a bit too fast. So - to bring this back on-topic, to my mind abuse of the domain system is the biggest issue facing ICANN right now, and whomever is nominated to the board should have bona fides in fighting network abuse, and a solid plan in place to make this issue a priority. On 2010-08-31, at 10:38 AM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 2010-08-31, at 10:15 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Schwartzman" <neil@cauce.org> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August, 2010 7:31:41 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination On 2010-08-31, at 9:16 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
Yes, that's what people think, that ICANN is in charge of everything on the Internet, while they are in charge of so little...
It would be nice were they to at least take responsibility for those areas that they are responsible, like rogue registrars, abuse of the domain system, and so on.
Without forgetting that the whois of names is a disgrace...
The whois of IPs is not too, too bad, because there are few repository organisations that talk to each others rather well...
There are those that would disagree, but certainly with the current administration, lead by someone who has deep knowledge of and great experience dealing with net abuse (Paul Vixie), ARIn has been getting much better. That said, Scott Richter, for example, was trivially able to illicitly access IP-space. Not to go to the Kreb's well too often, but : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/04/a_case_of_network_identit...
That would be the same Scott Richter, convicted criminal and recidivist spammer (1), who owns the Dynamic Dolphin registrar. Of course, now he is doing Facebook apps under the label Lunatic Games, so he won't be troubling the world with spam, right?
(1) MySpace won a $6 mil decision against Richter in 2009 http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/147159/former_spam_king_must_p... -- Neil Schwartzman Executive Director CAUCE The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, North America Inc.
http://cauce.org http://twitter.com/cauce AIM: caucecanada Tel.: +1 (303) 800 6345
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Schwartzman" <neil@cauce.org> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August, 2010 8:38:18 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination On 2010-08-31, at 10:15 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Schwartzman" <neil@cauce.org> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August, 2010 7:31:41 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination On 2010-08-31, at 9:16 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
Yes, that's what people think, that ICANN is in charge of everything on the Internet, while they are in charge of so little...
It would be nice were they to at least take responsibility for those areas that they are responsible, like rogue registrars, abuse of the domain system, and so on.
Without forgetting that the whois of names is a disgrace...
The whois of IPs is not too, too bad, because there are few repository organisations that talk to each others rather well...
There are those that would disagree, but certainly with the current administration, lead by someone who has deep knowledge of and great experience dealing with net abuse (Paul Vixie), ARIn has been getting much better. That said, Scott Richter, for example, was trivially able to illicitly access IP-space. Not to go to the Kreb's well too often, but : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/04/a_case_of_network_identit...
That would be the same Scott Richter, convicted criminal and recidivist spammer (1), who owns the Dynamic Dolphin registrar. Of course, now he is doing Facebook apps under the label Lunatic Games, so he won't be troubling the world with spam, right?
(1) MySpace won a $6 mil decision against Richter in 2009 http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/147159/former_spam_king_must_p...
You are a few level up, of what I see needs to be fixed. Having consistent, current and accurate data would be already a good start. And then consistency across all the whois so the data is formatted the same, with access policies that are workable... Then we can look who are all these people and why got a registration and can keep it... but I'm looking at BASICS... bare basics... In short it illustrates my earlier point, because people thought ICANN was in charge of everything but the kitchen sink, because of politic of power,.. then ICANN did not focus on its fundamentals...
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Neil Schwartzman <neil@cauce.org> wrote:
On 2010-08-31, at 10:15 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Schwartzman" <neil@cauce.org> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August, 2010 7:31:41 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination On 2010-08-31, at 9:16 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
Yes, that's what people think, that ICANN is in charge of everything on the Internet, while they are in charge of so little...
It would be nice were they to at least take responsibility for those areas that they are responsible, like rogue registrars, abuse of the domain system, and so on.
Without forgetting that the whois of names is a disgrace...
The whois of IPs is not too, too bad, because there are few repository organisations that talk to each others rather well...
There are those that would disagree, but certainly with the current administration, lead by someone who has deep knowledge of and great experience dealing with net abuse (Paul Vixie), ARIn has been getting much better. That said, Scott Richter, for example, was trivially able to illicitly access IP-space. Not to go to the Kreb's well too often, but : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/04/a_case_of_network_identit...
This is a rare case, hijacking IP blocks isn't 'trivial". IP addresses are allocated on a basis of need by the RIRs. It's not ICANNs role to intervene, spammer or not. If you want to prevent spammers from getting IP blocks, I suggest you write a policy proposal to that effect and introduce on your favorite RIR policy discussion list. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On 2010-08-31, at 2:45 PM, McTim wrote:
There are those that would disagree, but certainly with the current administration, lead by someone who has deep knowledge of and great experience dealing with net abuse (Paul Vixie), ARIn has been getting much better. That said, Scott Richter, for example, was trivially able to illicitly access IP-space. Not to go to the Kreb's well too often, but : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/04/a_case_of_network_identit...
This is a rare case, hijacking IP blocks isn't 'trivial".
That is simply wrong. there are numerous examples of hijacked netspace. if you'd like, ping me offlist and we can discuss it without boring the others.
IP addresses are allocated on a basis of need by the RIRs.
It's not ICANNs role to intervene, spammer or not. If you want to prevent spammers from getting IP blocks, I suggest you write a policy proposal to that effect and introduce on your favorite RIR policy discussion list.
Please re-read what I wrote. We were divergently speaking about ARIN, not ICANN, above. It is ICANN's role to deal with the fact that a convicted criminal who also happens to be a recidivist spammer who runs a registrar. ICANN have done so in the past, and need to do so *much* more actively. An activist on the board who cares about end-user privacy would be helpful in this regard. -- Neil Schwartzman Executive Director CAUCE The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, North America Inc. http://cauce.org http://twitter.com/cauce AIM: caucecanada Tel.: +1 (303) 800 6345
Hi Neil, On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Neil Schwartzman <neil@cauce.org> wrote:
On 2010-08-31, at 2:45 PM, McTim wrote:
There are those that would disagree, but certainly with the current administration, lead by someone who has deep knowledge of and great experience dealing with net abuse (Paul Vixie), ARIn has been getting much better. That said, Scott Richter, for example, was trivially able to illicitly access IP-space. Not to go to the Kreb's well too often, but : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/04/a_case_of_network_identit...
This is a rare case, hijacking IP blocks isn't 'trivial".
That is simply wrong. there are numerous examples of hijacked netspace. if you'd like, ping me offlist and we can discuss it without boring the others.
Yes, there have been cases of hijacked netspace, but it is a miniscule percentage of the total number of assignments and allocations, hence my use of the term "rare". I spent several years as an RIR hostmaster, and dealt with one genuine hijacking case in all that time.
IP addresses are allocated on a basis of need by the RIRs.
It's not ICANNs role to intervene, spammer or not. If you want to prevent spammers from getting IP blocks, I suggest you write a policy proposal to that effect and introduce on your favorite RIR policy discussion list.
Please re-read what I wrote. We were divergently speaking about ARIN, not ICANN, above.
It is ICANN's role to deal with the fact that a convicted criminal who also happens to be a recidivist spammer who runs a registrar. ICANN have done so in the past, and need to do so *much* more actively. An activist on the board who cares about end-user privacy would be helpful in this regard.
Agreed. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Franck Martin wrote:
Especially considering that these people were made to believe ITU was the one in(to be in) charge of these issues
"Love ICANN, or you are ITU" :), wonder how a whole ideology and practice of Internet Governance could so successfully be built around a single straw man.
Yes, that's what people think, that ICANN is in charge of everything on the Internet, while they are in charge of so little.. I agree ICANN is in charge of so little. And I really should not have much problem with anyone who is in charge of so little. In any case a good many things ICANN does, it does quite alright. So whats my problem with ICANN? Well, it is at two levels.
One, I keep trying to figure out who really is in charge of most of the things on the Internet? I am afraid many are going to jump with the reply - people or internet users, which is simply not true. It is true that the Internet was once a network of tens of thousands of networks, and one could assume some kind of 'democracy' and diffusion of power vis a vis the Internet. Today Internet is largely the domain of a few mega-companies (even more so on the mobile Internet). So, it is these companies that are largely in control of the Internet, which is not something I like very much (even less than I may like ICANN :) ). So I really want some kind of good democratic global governance for IG. But the question remains, why I dont like ICANN so much. Because it is a pioneering model of a new form of global governance which I am afraid will spread to other aspects of Internet governance, and then, I am even more afraid, perhaps even to non-Internet related global issues. The problems with the global governance model that ICANN is pioneering are: 1. It considers it OK that the biggest power in the world, the US gov, has complete veto on all issues, and is largely able to set the overall political vision and agenda. 2. It is predominantly controlled by global mega-corporates, which in any case are emerging as the most powerful global players (and thus need governance/ regulation to rein in their power) 3. Private/ commercial interests are openly rated to be of much higher value in governance arrangements than non-commercial/ public interests, which is such a travesty of any governance structure that should completely be public interest based, excluding all parties with conflict of interest. It is a model of governance where the powerful negotiate issues among them, and the public is co-opted in best ways possible, to keep dissent under control. It is nightmare of a governance model, for a world which today has a histroy of democracy extending to a couple of centuries. Then the question comes, why is ICANN model of global governance apparently so popular among powers-that-be, some of which are democratic countries and democratic societies (of the North). Regrettably, I must state the reason thus (somewhat deliberatively provocatively): With an increasing and probably un-reinable level of economic and also social globalisation some enhanced levels of global polity (well, no one seems to like the word 'politics' or 'polity') or global governance is simply inescapable. But those in situations of considerable geo-economic and geo-political advantage just dread the very idea of global democracy, for its expected egalitarian pull. Promoting ICANN kind of gov models, touted under more acceptable labels like of multi-stakeholderism, is the response of the globally powerful. And they are so powerful, that they are able to rig the discourse to their advantage, and make things they promote out of keen self interest appear as perfectly natural and smelling of all the goodness of this world. Parminder
.
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question
Have just no idea what this means. Why would you not use English in response to an English posting. I have barely learnt passable English as a third language. Apologies for it but I could not indulge my linguistic faculties any further to acquaint myself with French expressions even if they may get stylistically used in superior English :) . Parminder
LOL
Someone will translate for you, I'm sure... ;) It is my signature when I'm on the move... nothing specific to this thread, but now thinking of it....
_______________________________________________ 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
Why oh why can I never ignore your flamebait ;-/ On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:10 PM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
good many things ICANN does, it does quite alright. So whats my problem with ICANN? Well, it is at two levels.
One, I keep trying to figure out who really is in charge of most of the things on the Internet? I am afraid many are going to jump with the reply - people or internet users, which is simply not true. It is true that the Internet was once a network of tens of thousands of networks, and one could assume some kind of 'democracy' and diffusion of power vis a vis the Internet. Today Internet is largely the domain of a few mega-companies (even more so on the mobile Internet).
Do Google or Yahoo decide who ITforChange connects to? no, you do. So, it is these
companies that are largely in control of the Internet,
simply erroneous. which is not
something I like very much (even less than I may like ICANN :) ). So I really want some kind of good democratic global governance for IG.
and some of us want good democratic local and regional IG.
But the question remains, why I dont like ICANN so much.
Because it is a pioneering model of a new form of global governance which I am afraid will spread to other aspects of Internet governance, and then, I am even more afraid, perhaps even to non-Internet related global issues. The problems with the global governance model that ICANN is pioneering are:
1. It considers it OK that the biggest power in the world, the US gov, has complete veto on all issues, and is largely able to set the overall political vision and agenda.
you have to know that this statement is completely untrue on its face. Please document this if you disagree! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
ICANN is not pioneering a governance model. IETF is! ICANN was modeled on the governance model of IETF, which is a sort of meritocracy. Go to an IETF meeting and you will better understand ICANN. The current Chairman of ICANN did, do like him. The IGF is then modeled on IETF too... In how the Internet works, it is coordinated at IEEE and IETF (ICANN and ARIN are registry functions mandated by IETF). In how the Networks are connected, it is coordinated within the various NOG Looking at fighting security issues on the Internet, it is coordinated by the various CERT. Once you know at what tree to bark to, then there is less waste of resources... ----- Original Message ----- From: "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Wednesday, 1 September, 2010 1:10:36 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination Franck Martin wrote:
Especially considering that these people were made to believe ITU was the one in(to be in) charge of these issues
"Love ICANN, or you are ITU" :), wonder how a whole ideology and practice of Internet Governance could so successfully be built around a single straw man.
Yes, that's what people think, that ICANN is in charge of everything on the Internet, while they are in charge of so little.. I agree ICANN is in charge of so little. And I really should not have much problem with anyone who is in charge of so little. In any case a good many things ICANN does, it does quite alright. So whats my problem with ICANN? Well, it is at two levels.
One, I keep trying to figure out who really is in charge of most of the things on the Internet? I am afraid many are going to jump with the reply - people or internet users, which is simply not true. It is true that the Internet was once a network of tens of thousands of networks, and one could assume some kind of 'democracy' and diffusion of power vis a vis the Internet. Today Internet is largely the domain of a few mega-companies (even more so on the mobile Internet). So, it is these companies that are largely in control of the Internet, which is not something I like very much (even less than I may like ICANN :) ). So I really want some kind of good democratic global governance for IG. But the question remains, why I dont like ICANN so much. Because it is a pioneering model of a new form of global governance which I am afraid will spread to other aspects of Internet governance, and then, I am even more afraid, perhaps even to non-Internet related global issues. The problems with the global governance model that ICANN is pioneering are: 1. It considers it OK that the biggest power in the world, the US gov, has complete veto on all issues, and is largely able to set the overall political vision and agenda. 2. It is predominantly controlled by global mega-corporates, which in any case are emerging as the most powerful global players (and thus need governance/ regulation to rein in their power) 3. Private/ commercial interests are openly rated to be of much higher value in governance arrangements than non-commercial/ public interests, which is such a travesty of any governance structure that should completely be public interest based, excluding all parties with conflict of interest. It is a model of governance where the powerful negotiate issues among them, and the public is co-opted in best ways possible, to keep dissent under control. It is nightmare of a governance model, for a world which today has a histroy of democracy extending to a couple of centuries. Then the question comes, why is ICANN model of global governance apparently so popular among powers-that-be, some of which are democratic countries and democratic societies (of the North). Regrettably, I must state the reason thus (somewhat deliberatively provocatively): With an increasing and probably un-reinable level of economic and also social globalisation some enhanced levels of global polity (well, no one seems to like the word 'politics' or 'polity') or global governance is simply inescapable. But those in situations of considerable geo-economic and geo-political advantage just dread the very idea of global democracy, for its expected egalitarian pull. Promoting ICANN kind of gov models, touted under more acceptable labels like of multi-stakeholderism, is the response of the globally powerful. And they are so powerful, that they are able to rig the discourse to their advantage, and make things they promote out of keen self interest appear as perfectly natural and smelling of all the goodness of this world. Parminder
.
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question
Have just no idea what this means. Why would you not use English in response to an English posting. I have barely learnt passable English as a third language. Apologies for it but I could not indulge my linguistic faculties any further to acquaint myself with French expressions even if they may get stylistically used in superior English :) . Parminder
LOL
Someone will translate for you, I'm sure... ;) It is my signature when I'm on the move... nothing specific to this thread, but now thinking of it....
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Parminder: "The real public however is a much more complex, diverse and multilayered category, something which one wishes ICANN and those who engage with it began to understand." This is impatient of debate and yes, I absolutely agree with you! Carlton ============================== On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:47 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>wrote:
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 04:52 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Karl: I always find your posts thought-provoking and want to hone in on your assertion that if allocated a role with merit and strength in ICANN, there would be an overflow of participation. Maybe you're right.
Evan outlined how dispiriting it is when those of us in At-Large - for better or worse still a part of the deserving public - take ICANN at its word, get involved and make meritorious suggestions after studying the issues that are blithely ignored. Yes, we work.
I guess the fissure is a common understanding, if not perception. of what "public" means.
You speak of the pre-2000 "public" with some nostalgia and implied it was a time of great hubba-hubba in public participation.
Mind you, a lot of us who are now involved were probably not counted as part of the deserving public then.
I daresay a lot less of us. Especially those of us at the edge of empire.
Kind regards.
Carlton
Hi Carlton,
Now that you mention issues of exclusion and inclusion, let me say, the real edges of the 'empire' is still nowhere close to being covered/ included, as a legitimate/ deserving 'public', for the public policies that ICANN plus makes.
Yes, the (somewhat upper) middle classes in developing countries, (their interests, and those representing their interests) may be slowing creeping in across the edges, but not the marginalized sections, who are still the large majority in developing countries. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, these sections are simply not in a position to engage directly with and represent themselves through the various online platforms that ICANN's participative model largely consists of. They just have to be represented - however under-optimally - by organized groups and organizations that purport to represent their interests. ICANN is nowhere close to engaging with these groups/ organizations, in any fruitful manner.
Empowered individuals who can successfully navigate the difficult online space, with multiple technical and social exclusions, are still what constitutes ICANN's 'public' wherefrom it seeks the basis of its legitimacy. The real public however is a much more complex, diverse and multilayered category, something which one wishes ICANN and those who engage with it began to understand. That would be basic to obtaining the degree of legitimacy that ICANN seeks, and finds often refused by what I think is the majority of people.
Parminder
=============================
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Karl Auerbach<karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 30 August 2010 09:29, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl@gih.com> wrote:
- Outreach is ultimately a shared responsibility that requires ICANN's active support.
I very much disagree.
If ICANN allowed the public a role that had merit and strength then there would be an overflow of interest and participation - we saw that happen in year 2000.
And we see that happen for the industrial "stakeholder" inside ICANN that there is no shortage of participatory people and energy. That's because those industrial interests have "a stake" whereas ICANN has made sure that natural people who use the net are over-categorized, over-grouped, and over-managed into impotency.
Put the promised 50%+ of ICANN's board seats up for public election from slates of candidates who need pass no insider nomination process and I guarantee you that the public participation in ICANN would go up by many orders of decimal magnitude.
ICANN's "reform" of year 2002 and 2003 was intentionally designed to debilitate the public in ICANN. It has worked.
--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
_______________________________________________ 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
On 30 August 2010 16:54, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 30 August 2010 09:29, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<ocl@gih.com> wrote:
- Outreach is ultimately a shared responsibility that requires ICANN's active support.
I very much disagree.
If ICANN allowed the public a role that had merit and strength then there would be an overflow of interest and participation - we saw that happen in year 2000.
Well, judging from the stats I can find,<http://members.icann.org/activestats.html>the assertion that the 2000 elections were free of insiders and self-interested is simply good-old-days nostalgia of dubious accuracy. Except in Asia, the majority of voters were domain owners. Even including Asia, the global percentage was 43%. In 2000!! In the Real World, what percentage of the public at large are domain owners? In 2000? The largest single category of occupation listed by voters was "Internet Business" and second-most was "Computer Software", third was "Business". Of course, as we well know, business users (and especially "Internet Business" users) are so badly under-represented and unheard within ICANN that they were forced to dominate the At-Large elections. You'd have a far better point to make if the 2000 voter base wasn't so elitist and insiderish itself. Indeed, I look with concern at its domination by people who make their living from the Internet and IT. I see no attempt to involve consumer groups or large NGOs such as the Red Cross as is happening now. The 2000 version of ICANN made no effort to get me and my user group (that was otherwise disinterested in Internet issues) involved; the post-2003 ICANN actively recruited us. Is the status quo user-friendly? Hell no. But let's not get wrapped up in romantic memories of bygone days when the proletariat (that was neither geek nor suit) ran ICANN. Put the promised 50%+ of ICANN's board seats up for public election from
slates of candidates who need pass no insider nomination process and I guarantee you that the public participation in ICANN would go up by many orders of decimal magnitude.
I wouldn't trust such a guarantee to be anything more than Internet insiders lining up power bases that would show zero interest in ICANN the day before or the day after the requisite beauty contest. At least now there is a reasonable policy-advancement regime and forced regional balance, while the maturity still isn't there yet there is visible progress.
ICANN's "reform" of year 2002 and 2003 was intentionally designed to debilitate the public in ICANN. It has worked.
Your notion of "public" is foreign to me, and clearly vice versa. And one person's "insider" is another person's "someone with a track record". - Evan
+1 Carlton =========================================================================== On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:43 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
No, there is no such rule, but California has a minimum wage (which is a bit above US federal minimum wage), ...
I wouldn't see that as a useful way to set an adequate level of compensation for board members. As it currently stands, to be on the ICANN board, one either needs to have an employer who is willing to pay for the time spent on board work, or else be independently wealthy enough (or I suppose have a spouse with enough income) to subsidize oneself.
If ICANN wants to expand the pool of board members to include people outside those two categories, it either needs to drastically slash the amount of time it asks of board members (not unreasonable, no other non-profit I know asks a fraction of what ICANN does), or else pay them enough to make up for the lost income. For the calibre of people I'd hope to attract, that'd would be something upwards of $50,000/yr. If we guess that half the board would accept pay, that'd be $500,000/yr, not a big number in a $65 million budget. If they want really good board members, they should offer $100K.
R's, John _______________________________________________ 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
"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
No, there is no such rule, but California has a minimum wage (which is a bit above US federal minimum wage), ...
I wouldn't see that as a useful way to set an adequate level of compensation for board members. As it currently stands, to be on the ICANN board, one either needs to have an employer who is willing to pay for the time spent on board work, or else be independently wealthy enough (or I suppose have a spouse with enough income) to subsidize oneself.
If ICANN wants to expand the pool of board members to include people outside those two categories, it either needs to drastically slash the amount of time it asks of board members (not unreasonable, no other non-profit I know asks a fraction of what ICANN does), or else pay them enough to make up for the lost income.
This is the crux of discussion the board has had many times. And most would agree reducing the workload of the board is highly desirable. The difficulty is, we haven't figured out how to do that (yet). The reality though is that ICANN is simply not like "other boards" or "other non-profits", so many of the superficial comparisons don't really apply. If you look at what comes to the board for action, there is lot of policy stuff they have to oversee (and that the community *demands* they oversee). This doesn't happen with most other boards (who deal primarily with finacial stuff). And if the board pushes more decision making back to staff, it is not uncommon for the community to gripe about that and demand that the board have the last say. My overall point is that yes, it would be nice if the board could reduce the amount of work it does and the mount of time needed to be a board member, and most board members would probably agree. But we haven't yet figured out how to implement that in practice, given all that ICANN is doing these days. It's not that people don't want to get there, its that it is pretty hard in practice to do so. Thomas
Hi, There is more than one way to decrease the Board's work load. I.e the choice is not that the Board should work harder or the Staff should take over. Part of the basic nature of ICANN is that the Staff supports and operationalizes. It should not make any policy or policy related decisions. There are a lot of other talented and committed people volunteering for ACs and SOs and working groups of all sorts. In this bottom-up environment the policy work is up to the those people and it is the Board's job to make sure that it has been done with due diligence and sometimes to decide among several strong and opposing recommendations. On payment of Board members, or even the chair, I think it is a bad idea. Once you start paying people for it, it risks changing their perspective to one that takes the money they receive, or will receive in the future, into account. In a for profit organization that makes sense. In ICANN I don't think it does. a. On 3 Sep 2010, at 08:03, Thomas Narten wrote:
"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
No, there is no such rule, but California has a minimum wage (which is a bit above US federal minimum wage), ...
I wouldn't see that as a useful way to set an adequate level of compensation for board members. As it currently stands, to be on the ICANN board, one either needs to have an employer who is willing to pay for the time spent on board work, or else be independently wealthy enough (or I suppose have a spouse with enough income) to subsidize oneself.
If ICANN wants to expand the pool of board members to include people outside those two categories, it either needs to drastically slash the amount of time it asks of board members (not unreasonable, no other non-profit I know asks a fraction of what ICANN does), or else pay them enough to make up for the lost income.
This is the crux of discussion the board has had many times.
And most would agree reducing the workload of the board is highly desirable. The difficulty is, we haven't figured out how to do that (yet).
The reality though is that ICANN is simply not like "other boards" or "other non-profits", so many of the superficial comparisons don't really apply.
If you look at what comes to the board for action, there is lot of policy stuff they have to oversee (and that the community *demands* they oversee). This doesn't happen with most other boards (who deal primarily with finacial stuff).
And if the board pushes more decision making back to staff, it is not uncommon for the community to gripe about that and demand that the board have the last say.
My overall point is that yes, it would be nice if the board could reduce the amount of work it does and the mount of time needed to be a board member, and most board members would probably agree. But we haven't yet figured out how to implement that in practice, given all that ICANN is doing these days. It's not that people don't want to get there, its that it is pretty hard in practice to do so.
Thomas _______________________________________________ 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
I am not sure if I understood - are you saying there is an special rule in California that allows not for profit organization to pay their board members let's say 2 minimum local salaries, as something else not considered real compensation of these members?
No, that was just Franck's suggestion of how much to pay. Am I really the only person ever to have looked at the California not-for-profit law? It's on the web, it's not hard to find, and it quite clearly says that the board of a non-profit such as ICANN can set the pay of its board members. R's, John
Just because it can be done does not mean it should. There is a practical distinction to be drawn to successfully manage public trust between those structures for board members who are executives (C level etc) and those who are non executive or Trustees. I sense it would be a disaster if ICANN paid its Trustee board members because it would increase scope for erosion of public trust and tendency for mission creep. But I have no problem with paying C level executives who have board seats. In ICANN that is only the President if I remember correctly. I am also seeing proposals that the Chair be shifted perhaps optionally depending on the Chair at the time from a non executive to an executive role and so be paid for that job. There are implications not least for the President role if this happens but that is something that the board has to address. Karl's point about establishing an expenses plan that properly supports Trustees (for liability insurance and other issues, legal, community and technical briefings so as to arrive at sensible characterisation of issues to be voted on) is excellent as reinforces the ability of Trustees to be effective representatives and board members. Christian P.S., ICANN board members are supposed to be paid professionals selected by supporting organisations. The operative word here is "support". They should support (sponsor) the trustees they select even if they vote as independents they still have the placement. On 10 Sep 2010, at 01:22, John R. Levine wrote:
I am not sure if I understood - are you saying there is an special rule in California that allows not for profit organization to pay their board members let's say 2 minimum local salaries, as something else not considered real compensation of these members?
No, that was just Franck's suggestion of how much to pay.
Am I really the only person ever to have looked at the California not-for-profit law? It's on the web, it's not hard to find, and it quite clearly says that the board of a non-profit such as ICANN can set the pay of its board members.
R's, John _______________________________________________ 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
On 09/10/2010 03:49 AM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
Just because it can be done does not mean it should. There is a practical distinction to be drawn to successfully manage public trust...
It's worthwhile to take some care with certain words. There are a lot of very subtle distinctions, many of which arise from the particular jurisdictions involved, but they can be important. (There is often a tendency to throw stones at US or California laws in these regards - let me just say that no matter which jurisdiction were picked there would be similar definitional issues. And, at least in my opinion as a California person, I think the California version of these things is reasonably rational and at least on par with one would get elsewhere.) ICANN is *not* a "trust". ICANN is a "public benefit" and "non-profit" corporation. (And it is also an organization that has obtained a tax exemption based on "lessening the burdens of government", whatever that means.) The directors are not "trustees". There are subtle differences between the role of a trustee and that of a director. Both have fiduciary obligations but they have a somewhat different focus. Directors' obligations flow to the corporation (and in the case of public-benefit corporations director obligations are expanded to include care for the public benefit as well as for the corporation itself.) Trustee's obligations flow to the beneficiaries. There may be differences, for example, regarding upon what and whom a director or trustee may rely. Directors (in California) are entitled (but not obligated) to rely on certain legal and accounting professionals. Trustees often have tighter constraints. --karl--
Karl, I was hoping to avoid the semantics (of a particular jurisdiction) and focus on the intent. But as you have raised this. California law appears to have the intent of creating schizophrenic board members of not for profit public benefit corporations. As you say on the one hand they have to mind the company and on the other they have to mind the public benefit. Doing this simultaneously is a huge challenge even for what an American might term a mom and pop outfit. But managing this for a body in the eye of global public interest is remarkably ambitious for those people on the board. The problem ICANN faces is not really one of the detail or interpretation of California law. It is whether it holds the public trust globally. I would not be surprised if the perception of the fiduciary or trustee or public benefit (whatever you may wish to term it) interests being upheld by the board of ICANN is not seriously dented should the majority of the board be paid for that role by ICANN. This may be unfair but it is likely. The management of public confidence is one reason why English Charity law separates out the trustee (board) from the management board and why the trustee board members are not paid. It ensures that there is clear air between those who are tasked for managing the purposes of the charity (for public benefit) and those tasked by those people to manage the organisational functions to satisfy that purpose. I also think it is worth considering that the likely reaction to a loss of trust in the public benefit credentials of the ICANN board would be to restore that by imposing or arranging some other oversight mechanism over ICANN. It is perhaps also worth noting at this point in my comment that there is no reason other than the antecedents of the location of ISI --> Jon Postel --> IANA for why ICANN should be solely a California regulated body. Christian On 10 Sep 2010, at 17:41, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 09/10/2010 03:49 AM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
Just because it can be done does not mean it should. There is a practical distinction to be drawn to successfully manage public trust...
It's worthwhile to take some care with certain words. There are a lot of very subtle distinctions, many of which arise from the particular jurisdictions involved, but they can be important.
(There is often a tendency to throw stones at US or California laws in these regards - let me just say that no matter which jurisdiction were picked there would be similar definitional issues. And, at least in my opinion as a California person, I think the California version of these things is reasonably rational and at least on par with one would get elsewhere.)
ICANN is *not* a "trust". ICANN is a "public benefit" and "non-profit" corporation. (And it is also an organization that has obtained a tax exemption based on "lessening the burdens of government", whatever that means.)
The directors are not "trustees".
There are subtle differences between the role of a trustee and that of a director.
Both have fiduciary obligations but they have a somewhat different focus. Directors' obligations flow to the corporation (and in the case of public-benefit corporations director obligations are expanded to include care for the public benefit as well as for the corporation itself.) Trustee's obligations flow to the beneficiaries.
There may be differences, for example, regarding upon what and whom a director or trustee may rely. Directors (in California) are entitled (but not obligated) to rely on certain legal and accounting professionals. Trustees often have tighter constraints.
--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
On 09/11/2010 01:54 PM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
But as you have raised this. California law appears to have the intent of creating schizophrenic board members of not for profit public benefit corporations.
I do not agree. There is a belief among many that board members of ICANN owe a duty only to the corporation. That would be true of a for-profit in most corporate structures in most countries of the world. However, the California alters that duty so that the measurement of what is in the interest of the corporation must measure the effect on the public interest. That latter aspect is largely forgotten and largely ignored by ICANN in practice. It is not an unusual provision and does not create a split personality, rather it makes it clear that the corporate interest must be kept in alignment with the public interest.
The problem ICANN faces is not really one of the detail or interpretation of California law. It is whether it holds the public trust globally.
Again I have to wonder out loud - what's with all this usage of words like "trust" and "stewardship"? In particular with specificity and in detail, what is the specific thing that ought to be held in trust or be stewarded? I define ICANN's proper scope in terms of the technical procedure of resolving domain name query packets at the upper two tiers of DNS so that DNS query packets are efficiently, accurately, and promptly turned into DNS reply packets without bias against any query subject (domain name) or query client. By that measure ICANN is doing virtually nothing that is within its proper scope. (IANA, which I distinguish from ICANN, *is* doing some work with DNSSEC.) f As you say on the one hand they have to
mind the company and on the other they have to mind the public benefit. Doing this simultaneously is a huge challenge even for what an American might term a mom and pop outfit. But managing this for a body in the eye of global public interest is remarkably ambitious for those people on the board.
The management of public confidence is one reason why English Charity law separates out the trustee (board) from the management board and why the trustee board members are not paid. It ensures that there is clear air between those who are tasked for managing the purposes of the charity (for public benefit) and those tasked by those people to manage the organisational functions to satisfy that purpose.
I have doubts about using a charity as something comparable to ICANN. ICANN, in practice today, is a very heavy regulatory body that decides the fate of billions upon billions of dollars of economic benefits. And makes those decisions largely on the basis of the pressure from incumbent industrial interests that are defined by ICANN using that horrible and anti-democratic word "stakeholder". ICANN is structurally infirm and it has become a captured regulatory body. As long as we keep thinking of it through rose colored glasses as something else we will not be able to change it into something better. I have made several proposals over the years about how to restructure ICANN - most of those proposals follow Louis Sullivan's rule that form should follow function. As such my proposals have redefined ICANN around well defined functions, and split ICANN into bodies around those functions. One statement of those ideas is at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-structural-principles-for-internet-go... An earlier form is at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/apfi.htm
It is perhaps also worth noting at this point in my comment that there is no reason other than the antecedents of the location of ISI --> Jon Postel --> IANA for why ICANN should be solely a California regulated body.
ICANN has to be somewhere. Every place has its faults. California is not a bad place - it has its faults* but it is not as bad from the public-interest point of view as, for instance, the State of Delaware. [*Without a doubt California certainly does have its geological faults.] (I'd also mention for passing interest that California, because of its heritage from Spain and Mexico does inherit some Civil Law principles.) (I wanted ICANN to be in Monterey, California, the former Spanish and Mexican capital of California, as I consider that more appropriate as the place where internet people gathered way-back-then than I do the Bologna creek estuary [renamed by real-estate developers as "Marina del Rey".]) I don't know whether people were ever aware of it, but ICANN did float plans to splatter itself into several distinct legal organizations in several countries with a common board-of-directors ("interlocking boards") across all of these. It would have been a procedural nightmare with lots of opportunities for "contracted parties" to do ICANN forum shopping. --karl--
On 11 Sep 2010, at 23:49, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 09/11/2010 01:54 PM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
But as you have raised this. California law appears to have the intent of creating schizophrenic board members of not for profit public benefit corporations.
I do not agree. There is a belief among many that board members of ICANN owe a duty only to the corporation. That would be true of a for-profit in most corporate structures in most countries of the world.
However, the California alters that duty so that the measurement of what is in the interest of the corporation must measure the effect on the public interest.
That latter aspect is largely forgotten and largely ignored by ICANN in practice.
When you question my use of the idea of public trust this judgement is (in part) what I mean. Even if it is not ignored at ICANN the structure today creates uncertainty - out there. When I question if the schizophrenic challenge of using a single board structure to manage the corporation and the oversight of the public interest this is what I mean. When you define ICANN as regulator shaping billions of dollars flowing through the usage of the domain name system. This is what I mean by public interest. (The question as to whether ICANN should be doing any of that regulatory activity rather than what I think was the intention when it was set up of co-ordinating the technical management of the some Internet including some DNS resources is one that has to be continuously asked and pressed on those who go to ICANN meetings. To be fair the board does come up with decisions that draw back from time to time. So not all is lost today.)
It is not an unusual provision and does not create a split personality, rather it makes it clear that the corporate interest must be kept in alignment with the public interest.
It is unusual and it is not really working as a matter of global confidence in the board and institutions at ICANN. If board members get paid will this increase or decrease their scope for representing the public interest?
From the outside looking in there is no clear separation of "public benefit" from the "corporate benefit" because they are vested in the same person or persons. This argument does not make them bad people or good one's. It simply reflects the tension they are being put under.
The problem ICANN faces is not really one of the detail or interpretation of California law. It is whether it holds the public trust globally.
Again I have to wonder out loud - what's with all this usage of words like "trust" and "stewardship"? In particular with specificity and in detail, what is the specific thing that ought to be held in trust or be stewarded?
Trust :- The purposes for the public benefit of the activities. - IANA function. Plus the gorilla in the room with the current ICANN expanded role to include acting as arbiter (not just regulator) of new tld's then this is also a key public interest. ( access to Root Server. ) Stewarding: Not sure what you mean by this. But if you mean co-ordination between the various interested parties then yes. But the big issue here for many years was to have those interested parties co-ordinate through ICANN at all.
I define ICANN's proper scope in terms of the technical procedure of resolving domain name query packets at the upper two tiers of DNS so that DNS query packets are efficiently, accurately, and promptly turned into DNS reply packets without bias against any query subject (domain name) or query client.
By that measure ICANN is doing virtually nothing that is within its proper scope. (IANA, which I distinguish from ICANN, *is* doing some work with DNSSEC.)
I attended a London consultation on gTLD's last year which was my first direct ICANN contact for about six years. A bunch of senior ICANN staff new to me were busy justifying a broader scope for ICANN as having always been the intent. One slide was provided with a very selective and flimsy interpretation of a phrase in an old document. This mission creep is disappointing and makes the challenge for board members and the supporting organisations all the more difficult if the focus (which I agree should be technical) is to be restored. ICANN was not even mentioning v6 for years until a few public spirited engineers turned up at their own expense and said Oy! You might at least mention it is time to start resolving for IPv6.
f As you say on the one hand they have to
mind the company and on the other they have to mind the publict le benefit. Doing this simultaneously is a huge challenge even for what an American might term a mom and pop outfit. But managing this for a body in the eye of global public interest is remarkably ambitious for those people on the board.
The management of public confidence is one reason why English Charity law separates out the trustee (board) from the management board and why the trustee board members are not paid. It ensures that there is clear air between those who are tasked for managing the purposes of the charity (for public benefit) and those tasked by those people to manage the organisational functions to satisfy that purpose.
I have doubts about using a charity as something comparable to ICANN.
ICANN, in practice today, is a very heavy regulatory body that decides the fate of billions upon billions of dollars of economic benefits. And makes those decisions largely on the basis of the pressure from incumbent industrial interests that are defined by ICANN using that horrible and anti-democratic word "stakeholder".
Yes the term has been polluted by the UK's own now much unloved once worshiped New Labour Brown-Blair-Mandelson into something entirely sinister. Are you a stakeholder? What type of stakeholder? Then join the queue over there. Are you not a stakeholder? Sorry please take this form so you can apply to become one. But I have a problem. Sorry only an approved stakeholder can ....
ICANN is structurally infirm and it has become a captured regulatory body. As long as we keep thinking of it through rose colored glasses as something else we will not be able to change it into something better.
I am not following things at ICANN over the last six or so years closely enough to comment other than my visitation to their consultation I mention above.
I have made several proposals over the years about how to restructure ICANN - most of those proposals follow Louis Sullivan's rule that form should follow function. As such my proposals have redefined ICANN around well defined functions, and split ICANN into bodies around those functions.
One statement of those ideas is at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-structural-principles-for-internet-go... An earlier form is at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/apfi.htm
Thanks for the links
It is perhaps also worth noting at this point in my comment that there is no reason other than the antecedents of the location of ISI --> Jon Postel --> IANA for why ICANN should be solely a California regulated body.
ICANN has to be somewhere. Every place has its faults. California is not a bad place - it has its faults* but it is not as bad from the public-interest point of view as, for instance, the State of Delaware.
[*Without a doubt California certainly does have its geological faults.]
(I'd also mention for passing interest that California, because of its heritage from Spain and Mexico does inherit some Civil Law principles.)
(I wanted ICANN to be in Monterey, California, the former Spanish and Mexican capital of California, as I consider that more appropriate as the place where internet people gathered way-back-then than I do the Bologna creek estuary [renamed by real-estate developers as "Marina del Rey".])
Ooops! I am NOT attacking California nor Californian laws. I am simply stating what seems obvious. Paying the board members by ICANN is more likely to draw them towards the corporate interest side of their brains and even if it does not there is no way to tell from the outside. California law does not prohibit paying board members and why should it. But I don't see how it can be in the public benefit interest for ICANN board members (other than those clearly with executive responsibilities) to be paid by ICANN directly. I have not seen an argument that under the current legal framework ICANN inhabits that would clearly square this circle.
I don't know whether people were ever aware of it, but ICANN did float plans to splatter itself into several distinct legal organizations in several countries with a common board-of-directors ("interlocking boards") across all of these. It would have been a procedural nightmare with lots of opportunities for "contracted parties" to do ICANN forum shopping.
No that would be silly way to get around the formation of an international treaty organisation :-)
--karl--
Christian
I don't think they are. "Supporting Organisation" in ICANN parlance means something very different from what I think you assume here. The Board members are NOT required to be "paid professionals" - at least in this field. They can be professionals in other areas with an interest and expertise in ICANN issues, but that doesn't have to be their primary career. They are not designed to be financially supported by the SOs, NomCom and Advisory Committees who nominate them. They are not "trustees" either - the 2 are different, carry different obligations and so on. Jacqueline On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>wrote:
Christian
P.S., ICANN board members are supposed to be paid professionals selected by supporting organisations. The operative word here is "support". They should support (sponsor) the trustees they select even if they vote as independents they still have the placement.
Jacqueline The point I am trying to make is that ICANN board membership is not supposed to be the DAY Job. If it has got to the point that for the work to be doable then it has to become the day job then this changes a fundamental precondition for what ICANN board membership was designed to involve. The implication being that you can't just go and start paying the board without looking at the impact this will have on the broader design of ICANN. i.e., this could get messy. On the issue of Trust or trust. It is amazing how fast people wish to submarine into a semantic discussion rather than one of substance. The issue is not how ICANN is structurally shoehorned into one particular jurisdiction's world view. It is about whether the public out there in the whole wide world believe ICANN is trustworthy to co-ordinate between the managers of the unique Internet resources entrusted to it (co-ordinate not manage and especially not govern please note!). The term trust is meant in this broader perhaps political than legal sense. The board has a role in protecting this trust. A very large part of that job is to rein in the tendency for mission creep very evident today. I might also add that there is considerable precedence for unpaid board members in the Internet sphere. Most Internet organisations have volunteer unpaid boards made up from professionals or similarly skilled. The origin of ICANN is from this tradition which is still widespread. So lies another niggle I have with the idea of paying the ICANN board. It further removes ICANN at least culturally from the rest of the Internet sphere of activities of which it is supposed to be just a part. I am not against people being paid but I am concerned enough by the idea of rubber stamping a salary culture at ICANN board level to raise some questions. best regards Christian P.S., You are correct. I was describing a redefinition of how a Supporting Organisation interfaces with ICANN to show one (speculative and not entirely happy) way that might keep board members paid at arms length of the ICANN purse strings bolstering the public sense of trust in their good auspices. I was not describing the SO situation as of today nor suggesting this is a practical measure as things are now. i.e., it is going to be very hard to pay board members and find a way to balance the public benefit part of their remit which I think is necessary for long term stability. On 13 Sep 2010, at 11:51, Jacqueline Morris wrote:
I don't think they are. "Supporting Organisation" in ICANN parlance means something very different from what I think you assume here. The Board members are NOT required to be "paid professionals" - at least in this field. They can be professionals in other areas with an interest and expertise in ICANN issues, but that doesn't have to be their primary career.
They are not designed to be financially supported by the SOs, NomCom and Advisory Committees who nominate them. They are not "trustees" either - the 2 are different, carry different obligations and so on. Jacqueline
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>wrote:
Christian
P.S., ICANN board members are supposed to be paid professionals selected by supporting organisations. The operative word here is "support". They should support (sponsor) the trustees they select even if they vote as independents they still have the placement.
_______________________________________________ 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
Board payment is a difficult issue. In several not for profit organizations board member are receiving only by the days they fully dedicated to the organizations, (as happened to representatives and senators when they are called to participate during off days in a special meeting) and this would happen only during the meetings ( normally work starts on Saturday and ends at night at next Friday), and during the retreats. That the only occasions I can see remuneration for the board be approved while the organization is under the not for profit organization status & under California legal framework. They are compensate for their time. Some organizations also pays for the travelling days in a reduced basis. 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 Christian de Larrinaga Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:57 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination Jacqueline The point I am trying to make is that ICANN board membership is not supposed to be the DAY Job. If it has got to the point that for the work to be doable then it has to become the day job then this changes a fundamental precondition for what ICANN board membership was designed to involve. The implication being that you can't just go and start paying the board without looking at the impact this will have on the broader design of ICANN. i.e., this could get messy. On the issue of Trust or trust. It is amazing how fast people wish to submarine into a semantic discussion rather than one of substance. The issue is not how ICANN is structurally shoehorned into one particular jurisdiction's world view. It is about whether the public out there in the whole wide world believe ICANN is trustworthy to co-ordinate between the managers of the unique Internet resources entrusted to it (co-ordinate not manage and especially not govern please note!). The term trust is meant in this broader perhaps political than legal sense. The board has a role in protecting this trust. A very large part of that job is to rein in the tendency for mission creep very evident today. I might also add that there is considerable precedence for unpaid board members in the Internet sphere. Most Internet organisations have volunteer unpaid boards made up from professionals or similarly skilled. The origin of ICANN is from this tradition which is still widespread. So lies another niggle I have with the idea of paying the ICANN board. It further removes ICANN at least culturally from the rest of the Internet sphere of activities of which it is supposed to be just a part. I am not against people being paid but I am concerned enough by the idea of rubber stamping a salary culture at ICANN board level to raise some questions. best regards Christian P.S., You are correct. I was describing a redefinition of how a Supporting Organisation interfaces with ICANN to show one (speculative and not entirely happy) way that might keep board members paid at arms length of the ICANN purse strings bolstering the public sense of trust in their good auspices. I was not describing the SO situation as of today nor suggesting this is a practical measure as things are now. i.e., it is going to be very hard to pay board members and find a way to balance the public benefit part of their remit which I think is necessary for long term stability. On 13 Sep 2010, at 11:51, Jacqueline Morris wrote:
I don't think they are. "Supporting Organisation" in ICANN parlance means something very different from what I think you assume here. The Board members are NOT required to be "paid professionals" - at least in this field. They can be professionals in other areas with an interest and expertise in ICANN issues, but that doesn't have to be their primary career.
They are not designed to be financially supported by the SOs, NomCom and Advisory Committees who nominate them. They are not "trustees" either - the 2 are different, carry different obligations and so on. Jacqueline
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>wrote:
Christian
P.S., ICANN board members are supposed to be paid professionals selected
by
supporting organisations. The operative word here is "support". They should support (sponsor) the trustees they select even if they vote as independents they still have the placement.
_______________________________________________ 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
It's true, being an ICANN board member is not supposed to be one's day job, but to do a good job as a board member takes an enormous amount of time, so it is in practice one's day job whether or not it is supposed to be. By not paying board members, ICANN restricts board membership to people whose employers pay for their time on the board, who are rich, or I suppose who are willing to have their families live on what little money they can make in the time left. The issue isn't whether board members would do it for the money, the question is whose money will be supporting them. I think, for example, that it is great that Google was willing to pay for Vint to be the board chair, but the conflict of interest is obvious. R's, John On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Vanda UOL wrote:
Board payment is a difficult issue. In several not for profit organizations board member are receiving only by the days they fully dedicated to the organizations, (as happened to representatives and senators when they are called to participate during off days in a special meeting) and this would happen only during the meetings ( normally work starts on Saturday and ends at night at next Friday), and during the retreats. That the only occasions I can see remuneration for the board be approved while the organization is under the not for profit organization status & under California legal framework. They are compensate for their time. Some organizations also pays for the travelling days in a reduced basis.
Board payment is a difficult issue.
Another factor to consider is that, under California law, volunteer Board members of non-profit corporations are generally immune to personal liability.* Granted, ICANN is not the typical underfunded non-profit with limited ability to indemnify its directors and holding Directors and Officers liability insurance with low caps, but know that anyone who gets paid loses this statutory protection. Even if ICANN decided to pay its Board members, I wouldn't be surprised if some turned it down in order to retain the protection. -- Bret * "5239. (a) There shall be no personal liability to a third party for monetary damages on the part of a volunteer director or volunteer executive officer of a nonprofit corporation subject to this part, caused by the director's or officer's negligent act or omission in the performance of that person's duties as a director or officer...." http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=05001-06000...
Correct, but ICANN does have D&O insurance (Hopefully) that should more that adequately cover the directors when acting within the scope of their directorship. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:21 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
Board payment is a difficult issue.
Another factor to consider is that, under California law, volunteer Board members of non-profit corporations are generally immune to personal liability.* Granted, ICANN is not the typical underfunded non-profit with limited ability to indemnify its directors and holding Directors and Officers liability insurance with low caps, but know that anyone who gets paid loses this statutory protection. Even if ICANN decided to pay its Board members, I wouldn't be surprised if some turned it down in order to retain the protection. -- Bret * "5239. (a) There shall be no personal liability to a third party for monetary damages on the part of a volunteer director or volunteer executive officer of a nonprofit corporation subject to this part, caused by the director's or officer's negligent act or omission in the performance of that person's duties as a director or officer...." http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=05001-06000... _______________________________________________ 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
On 09/14/2010 03:23 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Correct, but ICANN does have D&O insurance (Hopefully) that should more that adequately cover the directors when acting within the scope of their directorship.
As I mentioned in my prior note, certain penalties are in the form of draconian excise taxes which may not be insurable. But the other point is "acting within the scope of their directorship." I maintained a public diary of what I did on ICANN's board. (It is still online at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/diary/index.htm) I maintained that diary for a couple of purposes: First was to communicate with the community of internet users. Second was to create a written record, made in a way so that it could presumably pass any hearsay objections, so that I would have a concrete foundation for protection under the business judgment rule - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Business_judgment_rule --karl--
On 09/14/2010 03:21 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:
Board payment is a difficult issue.
Another factor to consider is that, under California law, volunteer Board members of non-profit corporations are generally immune to personal liability....
It's been a couple of years since I last looked, but the California law was somewhat tricky because of a Federal immunity statute that may have preempted the California immunity statue in some circumstances. When I was on the board I found some situations where neither immunity statutes nor insurance would have offered any protection. (I warned the board; but as usual I got the Cassandra treatment.) In particular there was a situation in which ICANN was paying a lot of $$ to a contractor that had no legal right to collect those $$ (and I'm talking about $$ numbers with lots of zeros.) What made it "interesting" was that the recipient of those $$ was a person who was not only a founder and corporate officer of ICANN but also a person with significant direct control over corporate acts. That raised a thing that our US internal revenue service (our national "tax man") calls "intermediate sanctions" - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions The penalties under intermediate sanctions land on the recipient of the $$, on the corporation, *and* on the officer and directors of the corporation. And those penalties are designed to be draconian. But what makes it most interesting is that those penalties are defined as a tax - http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$b... Now, I am not at all sure that the California statutes can immunize a director against the payment of a Federal *tax*. And I do wonder whether typical D&0 insurance will insure against the payment of a *tax*. In other words whether volunteer or not, whether covered by D&O insurance or not, there may be significant personal risks to serving as a director on the board of a non-profit corporation. These are some of the reasons why I always suggest to a potential director that they go to their own legal counsel for advice on these issues. --karl--
Christian makes some good points of principle but we still have an issue to face. Given the need for diversity at the Board level, when is volunteer time too much? And at what stage do we recognize that the diversity objective - economic, social, origin, skillset, worth - is being undermined? Maybe it is as a result of 'mission creep'. But the cold fact is that even at this stage, a volunteer servicing the needs of ICANN runs the risk of subverting their day job for ICANN's work. At least for those of us with day jobs! And based on the threads I see leading to the Board, I should think this issue is even more acute for them. The preparation time alone is enormous and growing. At least if you would not wish to be the rubber stamp on the Board! Here's something else. Thinking outside the box,, maybe this is intentional. Because no compensation would clear the way for only 'certain others' to be available for Board duty. There is, without question, a significant group of 'stakeholders' who strongly believe that ICANN's business is truly but some peoples business. And their definition of 'peoples' leaves out a whole lot of us, especially those of us in the periphery and on the edge of empire. The baseline response then is to a) rein in the mission creep and prune back b) compensate members as a means to enable the diversity objective c) do nothing and allow the environmental facts to disqualify Board membership. It will all come out in the wash. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>wrote:
Jacqueline
The point I am trying to make is that ICANN board membership is not supposed to be the DAY Job. If it has got to the point that for the work to be doable then it has to become the day job then this changes a fundamental precondition for what ICANN board membership was designed to involve. The implication being that you can't just go and start paying the board without looking at the impact this will have on the broader design of ICANN. i.e., this could get messy.
On the issue of Trust or trust.
It is amazing how fast people wish to submarine into a semantic discussion rather than one of substance. The issue is not how ICANN is structurally shoehorned into one particular jurisdiction's world view. It is about whether the public out there in the whole wide world believe ICANN is trustworthy to co-ordinate between the managers of the unique Internet resources entrusted to it (co-ordinate not manage and especially not govern please note!).
The term trust is meant in this broader perhaps political than legal sense. The board has a role in protecting this trust. A very large part of that job is to rein in the tendency for mission creep very evident today.
I might also add that there is considerable precedence for unpaid board members in the Internet sphere. Most Internet organisations have volunteer unpaid boards made up from professionals or similarly skilled. The origin of ICANN is from this tradition which is still widespread.
So lies another niggle I have with the idea of paying the ICANN board. It further removes ICANN at least culturally from the rest of the Internet sphere of activities of which it is supposed to be just a part. I am not against people being paid but I am concerned enough by the idea of rubber stamping a salary culture at ICANN board level to raise some questions.
best regards
Christian
P.S., You are correct. I was describing a redefinition of how a Supporting Organisation interfaces with ICANN to show one (speculative and not entirely happy) way that might keep board members paid at arms length of the ICANN purse strings bolstering the public sense of trust in their good auspices. I was not describing the SO situation as of today nor suggesting this is a practical measure as things are now. i.e., it is going to be very hard to pay board members and find a way to balance the public benefit part of their remit which I think is necessary for long term stability.
On 13 Sep 2010, at 11:51, Jacqueline Morris wrote:
I don't think they are. "Supporting Organisation" in ICANN parlance means something very different from what I think you assume here. The Board members are NOT required to be "paid professionals" - at least in this field. They can be professionals in other areas with an interest and expertise in ICANN issues, but that doesn't have to be their primary career.
They are not designed to be financially supported by the SOs, NomCom and Advisory Committees who nominate them. They are not "trustees" either - the 2 are different, carry different obligations and so on. Jacqueline
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>wrote:
Christian
P.S., ICANN board members are supposed to be paid professionals selected
by
supporting organisations. The operative word here is "support". They should support (sponsor) the trustees they select even if they vote as independents they still have the placement.
_______________________________________________ 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
To clarify one point... "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
If ICANN paid the rest of the board, like they now pay the chair, the pool of candidates would be much larger.
To be clear, the chair is not paid today. No one on the board is. There is a proposal in the works to change that (see the ICANN web pages), especially for the chair, but the process for making such a change has not yet completed, and it has not been determined when (assuming it happens) it will go into effect and whether it will apply to current board members, etc. Thomas
Hi Thomas, On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:
To clarify one point...
"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
If ICANN paid the rest of the board, like they now pay the chair, the pool of candidates would be much larger.
To be clear, the chair is not paid today. No one on the board is. There is a proposal in the works to change that (see the ICANN web pages), especially for the chair, but the process for making such a change has not yet completed, and it has not been determined when (assuming it happens) it will go into effect and whether it will apply to current board members, etc.
I read the other day that it went into effect on 6th Aug, but I may be mistaken on the date...it's in the Board Minutes of last meeting. The Chair gets 75K USD per year IIRC> -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
I read the other day that it went into effect on 6th Aug, but I may be mistaken on the date...it's in the Board Minutes of last meeting. The Chair gets 75K USD per year IIRC>
You're right and I stand corrected. The board did approve the posted proposal (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm#5) I missed the last meeting and thought this topic was still out for public comment. The public posting (along with the public comments) is here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06jul10-en.htm Thomas
participants (26)
-
Annette Muehlberg -
Avri Doria -
Bret Fausett -
Carlton Samuels -
Christian de Larrinaga -
cveraq＠gmail.com -
Evan Leibovitch -
Franck Martin -
Hong Xue -
Jacqueline Morris -
John R. Levine -
Joly MacFie -
Jorge Amodio -
Karl Auerbach -
Khaled KOUBAA -
McTim -
Neil Schwartzman -
Neuman, Jeff -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
parminder -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano -
Thomas Narten -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vanda UOL -
Yassin Mshana