[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN committee recommends voting restrictions, fewer At-Large di rectors

[Dave Crocker]

Sorry, but no.

In reality, the consensus you refer to is from only one part of the community.

It is worth noting that that one part tends to worry more about making 
ICANN a fishbowl, or otherwise treating it as an academic/idealistic 
exercise in a sophomoric version of pseudo-democracy, than about getting 
any real work done, or even keeping the DNS viable.

If folks want to consider matters seriously, then they need to consider 
them in a balanced fashion.

Balance does NOT mean that you give over one-half of the board to a single 
constituency.  (Never mind that it is a constituency that it behaves more 
like an ICANN adversary than an integral, constructive participant.)

d/

At 03:56 PM 8/28/2001, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>With respect to the number of at large directors, at least in this
>constituency, I think there is some consensus. And so far as those
>comments given to this discussion at atlargestudy.org are concerned, it is
>very obvious. If somebody has different idea, they can make a comment
>there. Therefore, it is unnecessary to kill time for discussing on this
>issue. What we shoud explore from now on is how to make a relevant
>pressure for getting half of directors from at large member's election.

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464