RE: [ALSC-Forum] Option K

[Bruce Young]

Vittorio wrote:

>Rationale behind Option K
>
>This option is based on Karl Auerbach's "one man one vote" principle, and
on
>the fact that ICANN, first of all, has to be representative of the
worldwide
>Internet community to be legitimate to manage the only DNS root. The
problem
>of bringing skills and representation of specific private interests to the
>Board is solved through Advisory Committees.

OK.  That works for me.

>An At Large member (ALM) is any individual with a working (not permanently
>bouncing) e-mail address and a verifiable postal address.

Again, I disagree with the requirement for a "verifiable postal address."



>Any ALM can only be part of one ALC.

>An Advisory Committee (AC) is a set of member entities that hold a specific
>skill or interest relevant to the domain name system. So it is made by
>entities, not by individuals.
>
>There are no SOs in this model.

Other than the fact that they are not voting entities in this option, I
don't see the distinction between today's SOs and your ACs.

>ACs can veto specific decisions once and send them back
>to the Board for reconsideration.

OK.  I see.

> . . . it is not clear whether people will
>effectively like to form groups by social interests, by specific charters,
>by country, or by whatever else.

Why not "all of the above?"  Again, I see no reason to limit the creation of
interest groups based on any arbitrary category.

>ICANN gets funds via the TLDs (either a fixed yearly fee or a percentage of
any registration)

This sounds go on the face of it, but assuming the registrars are passing
this fee on to the nameholders (and they will!) it poses some difficulties:

	-  If this fee is large enough it could discourage the creation of named
sites by non-profit groups, the poor, etc.

	-  If it is too small, it would not provide sufficient funds to bank-roll
the organization!

	-  If we decide on a sliding scale, who pays less, who pays more and who
decides?

These aren't new thoughts, but any financing

>7) ASO  Would become the AAC (Address Advisory Committee), representing the
same
>interests as now.

>8) PSO  Would become the PAC (Protocol Advisory Committee), representing
the same
>interests as now.

>TLD registries would form the TAC (TLD Advisory Committee)

>Registrars of all the world (including registrars of specific TLDs)
would form the RAC (Registrar Advisory Committee).

OK.  So as I see it, these become staff agencies that provide technical
input to the board.

>GAC  No change - would be another AC representing the Governments of the
world.

Do we *really* want to give our politicians a voice?!  :)  OK, I guess we
do.  But only as long as we aren't required to listen to them!

>19 Directors. 18 elected by the ALMs, 1 CEO.

How is the CEO chosen?  If he or she is appointed (as you imply) who
appoints them?  Why not an elected CEO?  Does the CEO have a vote, or is
their vote reserved for use as a tie-breaker?

My suggestion: elect 19 directors.  Let the board members vote in the CEO
from amongst themselves.  Then reserve the CEO's vote for use only as a tie
breaker.

>Each AC would have an additional non-voting member in the Board.

Why?  They should certianly have representation in the meeting, but sit
behind the board members, not at the table!

>10 Directors elected in Regional elections, so to ensure geographical
>difference. 8 Directors elected in global worldwide elections.

OK.  I don't disagree with this per se.

>Elections should happen on lists of candidates, not on single names, to
reduce
>dispersion of the votes.

Huh?  Why not vote for individuals?

>14) Nominations

>ALCs that have at least X members (with X reasonably high, i.e. 5-10% of
the
members in the voting district) could present a list (via their ALCR)
without any further requirement . . .

Why place limitations on how names are brought forward?

15) Voting/Policy Process

>As noted before, all Board decisions should be submit to the ACs for formal
>verification.

OK.

>The Board should be allowed to meet and decide online if necessary.

I.e. virtual meetings online?  OK.  But I would also include:

"Board meetings will be Webcasted real-time, provoiding both audio and
audio/video feeds, and archived on the Web site for later review."

We can quibble about retention times.

>Important changes (such as Bylaws amendments) should be subject to a
general
>confirmation vote of all the ALMs.

Agreed.  In fact, I view the board as a body that primarily develops issues
for submission to the At-Large for vote.

>ALCs should get the list of their members. If an ALC starts spamming their
>own members, I doubt it'll live long. Before elections, lists of candidates
>should be allowed to send e-mails to voters. On the At Large site, other
>opt-in lists should be proposed (with freedom to anyone to be included in
>that list).

Submissions to the electorate could be handle through mail lists.  Mail
lists should be limited only by the inventiveness of the membership!
Members should be able to join or remove themselves from auxilliary mailing
lists at will, but membership should mandate that all members belong to the
primary list, and that that list be used solely for campaign and
election-related messages.

>At Large Membership must be free to ensure that anyone can get a voice
>independently from his conditions and direct interests.

Agreed.


Overall, a quite sensible  "first draft!"  Thanks for the ideas, Vittorio!

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
byoung651@home.com
http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html