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

[Rob Courtney]

At 7:46 AM -0700 8/31/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 06:08 AM 8/31/2001, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>>So for good or for ill, even if we have nine elected at-large 
>>directors, they will not "control" the Board in a voting-bloc 
>>sense, because they are highly unlikely to vote as a bloc.
>
>The issue is not whether the current set of at-large folks always 
>vote as a block, but whether they have enough in common, in the way 
>they are selected, to limit diversity.  Limiting diversity does not 
>mean that multiple people act as if they were one, it means that 
>they have a basis for doing it sometimes.
>
>Just as with the idea of conflict of interest, the concern is not 
>that someone has actually behaved in a certain way, but that there 
>are forces working on them that might influence them inappropriately.
>
>The entire reason we have the concept of constituencies is a) to 
>limit the effect of one perspective, and b) look for a range of 
>different perspectives.  At-large is one perspective.

As a lurker in this discussion so far this is an interesting 
question. In my opinion, the DNSO, ASO, and PSO in the way they are 
constituted share more with each other than any does with the ALM, or 
even than one AL Director might share with another. Aren't all the 
SOs designed to aggregate the energies of expert classes with 
immediate financial or professional stakes in ICANN's activities? 
That's distinct from the ALM, meant to include the large community 
that experiences the global ramifications of ICANN's activities. We 
could reasonably expert the financial/professional stakeholder 
interest to diverge from time to time from the "public" interest.

If the interests diverge, we fear "capture" by those 
technical/professional interests. An ALM that has an equal number of 
seats to the # of SO seats protects against that, since it takes 
50%+1 to make policy changes.

>I think it is fine to allow more than one at-large, since the 
>'perspective' is not as cohesive as some other constituencies, but 
>it is strong enough to be significant.  That means that it 
>appropriate to have only 1/4 to 1/3.  No more than that.

Bylaws changes can be made with a two-thirds vote. I think the 9-9-1 
split is adequate since it prevents either the ALM or the SOs from 
hammering through ill-advised policies, but also prevents one from 
making fundamental changes to ICANN without the cooperation of the 
other.

>It is essential to FORCE the entire set of at-large board members to 
>work collaboratively with members of other constituencies.

Important idea, though "force" is probably not the right word. 
"Facilitate," maybe?

r

-- 

Rob Courtney
Policy Analyst
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202 637 9800
fax 202 637 0968
rob at cdt.org
pgp id: 0xAD7123FB
http://www.cdt.org/