Re: [ALSC-Forum] Executive Committee

[Jeff Williams]

Pinder and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  As to Joanna's question our members have already spoken on the
bulk of it.  The answer is no.  Why?  Well quite simply that the
number of BoD seats that the AT-Large should have represented
is nine (9) not six (6), or 51% not 1/3...

Mr Pindar Wong wrote:

> My apologies Joanna...  not sure if you were addressing this to me or the
> forum.in general.
>
> You're question's important and makes sense but the reality is that we're
> buried right now and haven't had a chance to discuss it internally w.r.t it
> being any recommendation as such.
>
> Furthermore, nobody else has commented on it.
>
> Others: SPEAK UP! ;)
>
> Anyway, it's 1.30am right now and I've a business trip tomorrow  to prepare
> for after this and  Denise is going to kill me if I don't provide comments
> to her in the next 30 minutes, and I've been up since 5 am ... so I may have
> to keep this somewhat short.
>
> Personal comment below,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>; "Pindar Wong" <pindar@hk.super.net>;
> <forum@atlargestudy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:48 AM
> Subject: RE: [ALSC-Forum] Executive Committee
>
> > How come every time I ask a serious question, nobody replies?
> > Joanna
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 4:55 AM
> > > To: Pindar Wong; forum@atlargestudy.org
> > > Subject: RE: [ALSC-Forum] Executive Committee
> > >
> > >
> > > In November 1999 the ICANN Board
> > >
> > > "FURTHER RESOLVED [99.121], that subject to applicable law and
> > > the Bylaws, the Executive Committee will have and may exercise
> > > all of the powers of the Board in the oversight of the management
> > > of the business and affairs of the Corporation, including,
> > > without limitation, financial matters."
> > > http://www.icann.org/committees/executive/
> > >
> > > In August 2001 the ALSC reported
> > >
> > > "The developers and providers, now grouped in three Supporting
> > > Organizations, have a critical role in the overall system. We
> > > have discussed whether ICANN could be entrusted solely to them,
> > > thus eliminating the very profound challenges associated with an
> > > At-Large membership. However, the concerns of users are equally
> > > important to the success of ICANN's mission, thus requiring that
> > > an effective mechanism for their participation and representation
> > > in ICANN processes be found."
> > > http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
> > >
> > > Since it is generally agreed that an effective mechanism for At
> > > Large representation in ICANN processes must include At Large
> > > participation on the Board, it can be argued that it is equally
> > > important to the success of ICANN's mission to include
> > > proportional representation on any committee that may act in its
> > > place from time to time as necessary, and in particular any
> > > committee that will have and may exercise all the powers of the
> > > Board, including but not limited to the Executive Committee as
> > > currently constituted. Whereas the At Large are to be entitled to
> > > [at least] 1/3rd of the Board seats, then a proportional number
> > > of Executive Committee seats ought to be created for At Large
> > > Directors. As the committee is currently constituted with six
> > > members, two of the members must step down to be replaced by two
> > > At Large Directors drawn from those elected to the Board in due course.
> > >
> > > Any objections to making this recommendation to the Board as part
> > > of the ALSC Final Report?
>
> I wouldn't get too excited about the Executive Committee (if my memory
> serves me correctly its internal admin and fairly boring stuff -- things may
> have changed though) ("oversight of the management of the *business* and
> affairs of the Corporation, including,without limitation, financial
> matters).
>
> I can see how this seems to make perfect sense, but please remember when
> you're on the board you don't represent anyone/thing in particular.
>
> Hence having a me vs you and proportionate this and that may not have the
> same meaning. Why not also ensure that on the executive committee you have
> 50:50 male vs female etc.
>
> The Executive Committee  is there, it needs to work, if it isn't working
> then they should consider changing it.
>
> So perhaps first direct your question to the current at large directors to
> see if the executive committee is  working/not working (perhaps also ask
> those that serve on it)  or find  a way to get  your favourite director(s)
> on it...even capture it? ;)
>
> p.
>
> > >
> > > Joanna
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-forum@www.atlargestudy.org
> > > > [mailto:owner-forum@www.atlargestudy.org]On Behalf Of Joanna Lane
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 2:16 AM
> > > > To: Pindar Wong; forum@atlargestudy.org
> > > > Subject: [ALSC-Forum] Executive Committee
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What recommendation does the ALSC propose to make to the Board
> > > with regard
> > > > to proportional representation of the At Large interest on the
> Executive
> > > > Committee?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208