Re: Opposed to Board/Chair remuneration

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi again,

I noticed there was an incorrect link regarding overcompensated employees in 
the 
prior comment. The correct link should have been:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2011/msg00013.html

which documented the grossly overcompensated staff from the most recent IRS 
Form 
990 (i.e. at least 16 staffers earning over $200K/yr). During the ICANN meeting 
in Brussels, I asked about that compensation directly, and ICANN has yet to 
provide any satisfactory answer (or answers to other questions posed) see:

https://icann.wufoo.com/reports/icann-38-public-forum-fy-11-budget/
http://brussels38.icann.org/node/12532

I'd also like to comment, with amusement, on another comment submitted by a new 
TLDs advocate, who clearly "wants" something from ICANN:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/bylaws-amend-chair-comp/msg00001.html

It makes one wonder whether this comment period is degenerating into an "Oath 
of 
Fealty":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fealty

where those who clearly want the favour of ICANN for their pet projects show 
their allegiance by voting "yes" to payments to Board members. To suggest that 
payments should be *retroactive*, even, demonstrates how this process lacks 
credibility. Why should those folks be voting to spend the money of 
*registrants*, to gain favour? It's not even their own money! That money 
doesn't 
grow on trees, it actually comes from somewhere.

As another alternative, as was suggested in the public forum by another person 
at Brussels, conceivably domain registrants (who ultimately pay for all of 
ICANN's activities) could opt-in (or alternatively opt-out) of payments to 
ICANN 
Board members (and other silly things that get funded by our money). If the 
Board voted themselves $1 million/yr (collectively), that's 1/60th of the ICANN 
Budget. With roughly 100 million gTLD domain names, that's a penny per domain 
name for Board compensation (if one assumes the $1 million/yr, divided by 100 
MM 
domains). With 500 domain names owned by my company, I'd opt-out of having my 
$5 
(0.01 x 500) being wasted on ICANN Board remuneration. I'm sure others would 
like the same option, whether they own 1 domain or 100,000 domains.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/


----- Original Message ----
From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
To: bylaws-amend-chair-comp@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 3:52:17 PM
Subject: Opposed to Board/Chair remuneration

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 
board members.

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 
overcompensated employees:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090105_icann_for_profit_companies_comparables/
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg03017.html

and to extravagant spending on international holidays masquerading as "global 
participation."

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. 
Only 

2 percent on non-profits compensate board members:

http://nonprofit.about.com/od/nonprofitbasics/f/boardcomp.htm

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 
a 

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 
ICANN 

(e.g. Verified WHOIS, consumer protection in new TLDs via price caps, 
protection 

from bad UDRP providers, etc.), it is educational to see what ICANN's Board 
sets 

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 
members 

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 
they 

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 
beginning 

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 
public.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
President
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
http://www.leap.com/