Re: [ifwp] Re: Endgame moves...

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 08:12 PM 10/20/98 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
> >* membership-based structure to ensure greater accountability of the board
> >of directors to the Internet community.
>
> It is not currently feasible to institute a reasonable mechanism for a
> membership structure of this organization.  Finding a way will require far
> more extensive and careful thought than has so far occurred.  A membership
> mechanism involves logistics that have not been done before and it has very
> difficult matters of balance and capture to consider.  That is why the
> topic was deferred in the draft.

  Many organizations that are world wide have membership organizations much like
thestructure that our proposal recommends.  So, making this statement if flatly
and statistically untrue and without base in fact.

  An Initial Individual Membership Organization was deferred from the draft
mainly
because their is a fear that some of the SO's would loose power within the
organization
as to determining policy through its representation on the Board and its ability
to
propose Committees.  For this reason we as have some over 300 other
organizations
called for an initial Individual Membership Organization to VOTE on whom should
serve
on the Initial Board and all subsequent Boards, VOTE on what policies presented
by the SO's or the BOD To insure what he White Paper requires for Oversight,
Transparency, Openness, and Stability that is determined by the "Botom-UP"
Stakeholder/User community.

  However coming form someone whom led the gTLD-MoU/IAHC fiasco, that was
certainly not open, transparent or consistent with good public oversight, we are
not
supprised to here this kind of assessment.

>
>
> >* sound and transparent decision-making process to protect against capture
> >by a self-interested faction
>
> The proposal specifies TWO ENTIRE LAYERS of open input and review and
> challenge.  It will be extremely difficult to get anything done with the
> current structure, so it is difficult to understand why there is a claim
> that we need MORE transparency.

  There is nothing suprising or difficult to understand that the ICANN's
Draft-5a being terribly lacking in Transparency as it concentrates the vast
majority of
its power in the BOD and the SO's and provides for not real Public
Oversight, much in the vain of the MoU.

>
>
> >* avoiding the appearance of conflicts-- a system that permits officers and
> >employees of the supporting organizations to serve on the ICANN board of
> >directors threatens the independence of the board and should be prohibited.
>
> The contrary danger is a board that has no connection to the needs of the
> community, except as an abstraction.  The prohibition further ignores
> realities about the supporting organizations.
>
> Given that THEY also have open membership and selection processes, the
> concern for "conflicts" should not be nearly as great as the concern for
> representation of points of view, with a pragmatic base.

  This is a VERY BIG Given and one that cannot be enforced by the
ICANNInitially.  Hence yet another need for the ICANN to have an Initial
Individual
Membership Organization.

> In other words,
> we can try to achieve fairness by requiring that each participant have no
> vested interest or we can achieve it by requiring that a broad range of
> interests be represented.  The latter is practical.  For this topic, the
> former is not, if real and useful work is to get done.

  Neither of these suggestions are actually or realistically achievable in
today'smarket driven economy.  Hence yet again the need for an Initial
Individual
Membership Organization.

>
>
> >* mechanisms to ensure equitable representation on proposed interim board
> >of directors of the Internet community, including developing regions, based
> >on a transparent and democratic election process as additional interim
> >board members are selected and as the process for electing the permanent
> >board is adopted.
>
> c.f. discussion about membership.
>
> In effect, this concern here is a wonderful way to ensure essentially
> infinite delay.

  Not provideing a equal Initial Individual Membership Organization is the
realcause for delay.  And it will continue to be until or unless it comes to
pass.


>
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker                                       Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
> <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>             Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
>                                          Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
> Brandenburg Consulting
> <http://www.brandenburg.com>                       Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
> Fax: +1(408)246 8253              675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________



--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com