[atlarge-discuss] Further note from http://aggregator.does-not-exist.org/

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

FYI. From http://aggregator.does-not-exist.org/

Meeting of the at-large folks: Brief overview by YJ Park on the background:
2000 elections of five at-large directors, under the condition that more
directors would be elected later; at-large study committee and their
recommendations, Ghana decisions. Present situation: No guarantee on whether
or not there will be at-large directors in the new ICANN. Nominating
Committee process with ALAC sending some of the committee members. Brief
historical background on icannatlarge.org: Interim panel after the Ghana
meeting, second election (11 panel members) in August.

>From the board, Nii Quaynor and Andy Mueller-Maguhn attend. Andy on ICANN:
Board originally about a balance between users and providers. 9-to-9
situation suggested in the original bylaws: 9 elected by at-large, 9 elected
by SOs, and a CEO on the board. More background about the 2000 elections. On
his time as a director: People may have expected him to be fundamental
opposition. However, best way is to be constructive, getting some influence
on the outcome of the process. Make sure they mention user interests.
Intellectual Property got into the process very early; freedom of speech and
privacy are not in. Balance is missing. USG more affected by industry
lobbies than by civil rights folks. Don't overestimate the board. Real
power: CEO, staff, lawyers. Real discussions only in conspiracy evening
dinner, not in public board sessions.

Nii Quaynor: Comes from a community which can hardly be represented by the
DNSO's more powerful constituencies. How to find participation mechanisms
for them. Strong barriers - legal, fiscal, process and system, sometimes you
don't even get a visa. Geographic diversity is crucial, include staff. Is
member of the ERC. Is more comfortable with small changes. Expected small
tweaks, turned out to be big, fundamental changes. Hard to keep up for his
community. Don't change too many variables at the same time.

YJ: After years of effort, no outcome. In the beginning, 9 directors were
supposed to be there. Now: ALAC, but no guarantee that there are "at-large
directors" through Nominating Committee process. How to get directors who
care?

Esther on funding for ALAC: No guarantees in current reform proposals, but
it's crucial. Andy: Funding unlikely. Discussions: Was at-large a good idea?
GAC claims to represent users since represent elected governments.
Legitimacy question. At-large directors subject to strong questions on their
legitimacy. His idea: Get NGOs into the structure just like there is
intellectual property etc. Strong organizations around issues, not so much
diverse groups of individuals. Question to person from the NTIA who
participates in the meeting: MoU is vague. Some comments about what USG
thinks about legitimacy? NTIA: MoU is about getting user groups more
involved. It's not a blanket. Ass. Secy Victory met with many groups over
the course of the reform process to come to conclusion. NTIA can't fix
ICANN's problems. Not involved in ICANN's corporate governance. ICANN has
one year to fix itself. It's up to ICANN and its constituencies. Current
bylaws are a step in the right direction. But lots of changes pending. NTIA
open to listening to many entities. Esther: Involved with that kind of
negotiation in the past. Like ICANN could cut off Verisign's air supply but
never will, USG won't. USG can impose conditions on renewal. Right amount of
pressure needs to apply. DoC: MoU for one year. Specific provision on tasks
ICANN has to complete. Number of people looking at other options. Ass. Secy.
is very strict. New way of looking at ICANN. Different US administration
like the one when the first MoU was signed. You guys have to get together.
Everyone is complaining. Nii: Involvement by just one govt may be part of
the problem. International organizations? No level playing field at present.
May be better to have network of networks instead of individual
participation.

Roger Cochetti: Clarify perspective. VSGN has had an interest in at-large
elections. Why? For Verisign, issue has much to do with accountability.
Benefit to elections is less democracy by itself than that openly elected
directors are forced to openly explain what they did and why. Elections are
a powerful tool to enforce accountability. Some percentage of the board
should be elected. Forces a lot of accountability. Have financially
supported at-large efforts. Statement to ERC a few days ago indicated that
one of the committee's mistakes was removal of elected board members in
favor of closed-circuit nominating committee approach. Current approach
reduces accountability of board members. ALAC doesn't do too much harm, but
irrelevant to VSGN's objective.

(Notetaker absent for some minutes.)

Issues: ALAC participation in policy-development. This must happen as early
as possible. Funding for the committee. Transition process.

Role of governments; governance without governments? Esther: Representation?
Maybe rather get different perspectives.

(The Notebook)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de