Re: [ALSC-Forum] Self-regulation and ICANN

[Sandy Harris]

desertbobp wrote:

> > And before asking "How do you think we should do
> > this?" I say have ICANN add the 9 atLarge members to
> > the board as a first step to showing that it EVEN
> > wants individual input. So far it smells like garlic,
> > it is garlic..only 5 at large members so far.
> 
> I agree.  Instead of complaining that it's not *perfect*, let's move
> on and at least broaden the number of atLarge board members to
> what was originally proposed.

Absolutely. that should be the first recommendation the At Large Study
makes.

> We will make more progress by
> incremental improvement to ICANN than trying to come up with a
> new (perfect?) organization.

Yes. 

An incremental improvement I'd like to see is a statement of
principle that the number of elected At Large board members
should remain at least equal to the total of other members.

e.g. If ccTLDs get their own SO, as has been suggested, and
three board seats, then we need three more At Large directors.
An alternative would be to cut SOs to two each, giving them
8 with 9 At Large.