Problems

["David Schutt" <david@speco.com>]

A pretty big one. The Supporting Organizations (whomever they might be, but
I'm assuming Arin, Ripe, Apnic, IETF/IAB, and some yet to be determined
Domain Organization) has nine (9) guaranteed seats on the Board of
Directors. These seats are appointed by the leadership of the Supporting
Organizations. Why? What possible purpose does this serve? I have yet to
hear a rational explanation of what positive effect is achieved by giving
the Supporting Organizations such enormous power, and oversight over their
own operations.

IANA
=====

Section 2. INITIAL BOARD MEMBERS SELECTED BY THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

Immediately upon the recognition of a Supporting Organization by the Board
pursuant to Section 3(b) of Article VI, the Board shall request that such
Supporting Organization nominate three persons to be directors. Upon receipt
of such nominations, the Board shall elect such persons as members of the
Initial Board.


BWG
=====

2.4.1    Generally - Remove the power of the Supporting Organizations to
appoint members of the Board.

Comment:  The role of the Supporting Organizations (SO) should be to limited
to the provision of policy advice.  This was the consensus position from the
IFWP fora.  See IFWP Consensus Summary by the Berkman Center for Internet &
Society, Harvard Law School,
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ifwp/consensuslist.asp (visited on 20 Sept.
1998).
There is also potential for conflict of interest between advisory and rule
making roles.   Therefore we strongly advise against making SO’s members of
the Board.  We envision the SO’s as permanent standing committees.  We have
retained the language of Article VI, Section 1(c), thus giving   significant
strength to SO's policy recommendations.

Conforming changes should be made throughout the by-laws.


David Schutt
Speco, Inc.

The Boston Working Group documents are at

http://www.cavebear.com/bwg and

http://www.mama-tech.com/boston/