Opposed to Board/Chair remuneration
- To: bylaws-amend-chair-comp@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Opposed to Board/Chair remuneration
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Proposed Bylaws Amendment to Allow Remuneration of Board Chair comments
By: George Kirikos
Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
Date: July 6, 2010
We oppose ICANN bylaw changes to permit remuneration of the Board Chair, or any
ICANN purports to be a non-profit organization, but it shows no financial
restraint whatsoever, with a budget that has grown from under $10 million per
year to one that is now on the order of $60 million/yr. Much of that goes to
and to extravagant spending on international holidays masquerading as "global
It's a known fact that organizations attract the best participants who are most
committed to act in the public interest when those participants are unpaid.
2 percent on non-profits compensate board members:
and ICANN isn't that special to need it. Indeed, if there were global elections
for board members amongst domain registrants, instead of the current cabal (who
is unrepresentative of the public interest), there would be no shortage of
contenders willing to volunteer for free. ICANN needs to do less, and focus on
narrow mission. Creating salaried Board members, starting with the chair, is
simply going in the wrong direction.
Is it any surprise that this "initiative" to pay Board members only happened
after the "Affirmation of Commitments" took place, which somewhat relaxed the
DOC's oversight of ICANN? This is further evidence that ICANN's priorities are
all wrong. When there are important issues that are not being addressed by
(e.g. Verified WHOIS, consumer protection in new TLDs via price caps,
from bad UDRP providers, etc.), it is educational to see what ICANN's Board
as its actual priorities -- paying itself, feeding at the public trough! The
need for the DOC/NTIA/DOJ to rein in ICANN is clear. To compensate Board
directly? They've simply not earned it given the poor job they've done in the
past 10 years. When .com fees are going up 7% per year, how can ICANN claim
have been acting in the public's interest, when those fees should be around
$2/yr, instead of $7+ per year?
At best, there should be a token honorarium paid to board members, with a
requirement that the honorarium be paid in full to a charitable organization of
the recipient's choice.
If ICANN wonders why it can't attract "quality", it should not look to board
remuneration as the solution. The real solution is to gain prestige by
to act in the public interest, rather than being a tool for folks like VeriSign
(or other monopolist wanna-be's via new TLDs) and their own staff to tax the
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.