RE: [ALSC-Forum] FYI: Elections not budgeted

[Karl Auerbach]

> Yes.  The initial intention was for equal representation from the
> @Large community to offset government and corportate interests.

There was no "initial intention" that said that there should be some sort
of "equal representation".  That's simply a myth.

The original IANA plan for ICANN had absolutely no provision for public
participation.  None.

Despite public demand for a membership, ICANN's initial promoter refused
to even consider it, and to this day is opposed to it and works behind the
scenes to prevent ICANN from ever again having an at-large election for
Directors.

It was only through the work of various groups that the US government
became embarrassed at the overt structural bias and anti-democratic
character of the original ICANN design and thus obligated the newly formed
ICANN to discuss a membership.  (See
http://www.icann.org/minutes/trans-31oct98.html and
http://www.icann.org/minutes/notes-31oct98.html )

As I see it, there is no particular reason to limit one's perspective and
accept that the at-large should get merely one half of the total set of
directors.

There is a perfectly valid point of view (and it is also my point of view)
that ICANN's directors should be elected 100% by the at-large.

Those "stakeholders" (less euphemistically described as "special
interests") who are ensconsed in the "Supporting Organizations" of ICANN
already have plenty of power - according to the ICANN By-Laws those SO's
have the "primary"  responsibility for the formulation of ICANN policy.
So there is no need to give them both a policy role *and* a role in
electing directors.

By my way of thinking, the at-large ought to elect *all* of the directors
- which is logical considering that ICANN is a "public benefit"
corporation and its purpose is to "benefit the Internet community as a
whole".  Those "stakeholders"/special-interests, which already have the
"primary"  responsiblity of formulating ICANN policy, ought to be limited
to convincing the electorate of the worth of their suggestions for Board
members instead of getting to select their own set and then to wander over
and vote, once again, as at-large members.  (Yes, those folks who are in
the SO's can join the at-large and get a double vote.)

> Yes.  I also believe that, whether intended or not, and whether the
> law would have it or not, domain names...

ICANN is like Gaul - it has three parts: IP addresses, DNS, disputes over
"protocol parameters".  The former is a prodigious issue that most folks
are overlooking, the latter is something that has never happened in the 30
year history of the Internet.  Most people focus only the middle aspect
and forget the other two.

In other words, don't think of ICANN as having a role merely over domain
names.  ICANN's scope is considerably larger.

		--karl--