The report offers many good suggestions. However, the
call for a "deliberative nominating committee" is a significant flaw. In discussing
the nomination process the report says,
"In addition, we recommend that the board
establish a deliberative nominating committee - either a committee of the board itself
or a committee appointed by the Board - that seeks highly-qualified candidates and
has the power to place them on the ballot, listed as nominees endorsed by the board's
selection process. This would ensure that a slate of candidates judged by the board
to be highly qualified, and so endorsed, would be among the candidates presented
to the electorate."
Am I to presume that you expect the extant appointed / corporate
board members to pick a "deliberative nominating committee" (DNC) that will reflect
divergent opinions? I've heard nothing to indicate any such dissonance exists on
the board. No, we can expect the current board to appoint a DNC that reflects its
view. There is no chance they would intentionally do otherwise. It's just human nature.
Is there any disagreement outside the ICANN about its operation and the future
of the Internet? I suspect, "just fringe elements" is the answer ICANN's board members
would provide as they appoint their cohorts to the DNC.
But those familiar with
the scope of ICANN's responsibilities know that names, numbers, protocols, and root
servers are not simply technical issues. They are technical issues just like choosing
the neighborhood a highway would destroy in the 1950's was technical. Or deciding
on the distance a missile carrying a nuclear bomb could travel was technical. Or
deciding on a society's economic system - very technical stuff. The ICANN's technical
decisions will have an impact on who has the right to speak, when, to whom, and at
what cost.
I didn't see the role of protocols discussed in any significant way
in the report. Learning the fundamental restrictions placed on our access and use
of the net by these protocols is essential to understanding the power the ICANN holds
- even if it is well defined, limited, and "only technical."
I can picture the
ICANN's corporate attorneys from Jones Day clipping and pasting from the AT&T file
as they prepare to present the membership with the DNC nominees. I regularly see
similar recommended slates for electing corporate boards. They all seem so right
- How could I ever vote against the slate recommended by the Board of Directors?
I suppose, if I wanted to, I could run for a board seat on say McKessonHBO. Yes,
the stock is down 70% from last year, why don't I run? It wouldn't cost much and
I could count on the current board to fairly present my qualifications. Right?
I'd like to suggest the following nominee selection process.
We want to start
the process with a level playing field. There are several way to do leveling, but
in boot strap situation like this, the simplest is through self-nomination. The process
would work like this:
Step 1. An email is sent to all At Large members by a Membership
Implementation Committee describing the election and encouraging all interested in
serving on the board to send it a "Letter of Interest".
Step 2. Each member interested
in running then sends a "Letter of Interest" to the board's Membership Implementation
Committee. If there are more candidates than seats you move to Step 3.
Step 3.
Each such self-nominee is then provided with an opportunity to send two emails to
the full membership. Each email would provide information on the candidate and direct
the recipient to support the candidate via a vote in a nomination election.
Step
4. After the two mailings you would narrow the field by selecting the top 36 candidates
(if for a Council) or 18 candidates (if in a direct election) as appropriate.
Step
5. Move to the full election process.
Beyond this one flaw the Common Cause / Center
for Democracy and Technology report offers many excellent suggestions to the Board.
I look forward to their making many wise decisions in Cairo.
Sincerely,
Thomas
Lowenhaupt
TOML@communisphere.com