As I see it, only a "small" or "limited" or "prudent" number of new directors should
be tried first, as a sort of proof of concept or experiment. Once this "limited"
number of new directors was introduced -- and the suggested numbers roughly was about
five -- and assuming there were no adverse side effects, then additional directors
could be introduced if there was consumer demand for them. For a period, the four
people you mentioned should stay there while we watch if this introduction of new
directors might cause ICANN or DNS to explode suddenly.
As I see it again,
accrediting only five new directors, ICANN intends first to create a "test-bed" for
directors to be elected by members of the community.The concept is similar all
the time. From options offered up from the community, create a limited number of
new samples, be it TLDs or Directors or whatever, to ensure that the DNS can accept,
both technically and practically, these additions without impairing stability in
any way. Once that is proven, additional samples may be created or added in due courses
as appropriate. As I see it in conclusion, maximum possible procrastination and
minimum possible change should be the best policy for ICANN.
|
|
|