[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Geography [was Re: a cut at a icann-based pso]
- To: Diane Cabell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Geography [was Re: a cut at a icann-based pso]
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:57:59 +0100
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ICANN SO comments <email@example.com>
- Organization: INEG. Inc.
- References: <B3B34AF18759D011A2C500805FD25AF1018A15FE@EMAIL1> <370B2B0C.74808A15@hursley.ibm.com> <370BDD12.29E2169C@mama-tech.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Diane and all,
First let me comment on your comments here and than make a
viable suggestion, which we [INEGroup] made once before...
(See blow your comments for response's)
Diane Cabell wrote:
> One of the problems is the Board-wide cap in Article V Section 6 of the ICANN
> bylaws. No more than half of the Board (after the SOs are seated) can come from
> one region. I understand that this was a political concession reflecting the US
> commitment to shared administration of the Net; I don't know if it's
Political concession to whom? or by whom to whom? This point has
never to my knowledge been clarified... It needs to be, as we can now
see in this instance with the PSO.
> This cap puts the entire geographic distribution burden on the At-Large
> membership; and if the SOs appoint all their personnel from the same region,
> then the At-large will have no appeal to citizens of that region.
The term "Appoint" still continues to be bothersome to many in the
community. In accordance with the White paper, "Appointment" of any
personnel is in violation of that white paper as well as the
Why is this term continually used in this context?
> It defeats
> the purpose of the At-large membership. People undertaking the burden of
> running for At-large Directors have no assurance that they'll be eligible to
What if any are or should be the restrictions of ANYONE to serve
> What if an SO director is replaced mid-term and that takes the Board over
> the cap?
Than I would suppose that someone form that region in which director
from must be determined or provide himself/herself as a candidate for
to that directorship. It is however not too difficult to see how this
burdensome, and in our view, unnecessarily so. And this brings us back
full circle to the restriction in Article V Section 6 of the ICANN
as well, yet again in stark violation of the White Paper principals. As
in Article V Section 6, an attempt to gerrymander regional
irrespective of viable and/or qualified candidates that have either the
ability or the qualifications to serve... In addition as has been
at length, as I am sure you are aware of Diane, it( Article V Section
does not meet the "Openess" reqirenment and "transparency" requirements
of the White paper as well...
> The Membership Advisory Committee is recommending that the Interim Board amend
> V.6 to allow the different components to meet the geographic distribution
> requirements independent of each other.
A possible good forward step, that has been suggested on more than one
occasion. It would be advantageous to see language here and to have
the At Large membership vote on those potential amendments, so
as to have good stakeholder involvement and approval.
> When we suggested the SOs name
> one-per-region, we didn't realize you would have such a hard time fielding
> non-US candidates. A 2-per-region rule would also require amending the ICANN
Indeed it would and should. Yet again a good argument for eliminating
Article V Section 6 altogether...
> We would like to find a solution that allows our electorate to vote
> knowledgeably and we'd also like At-large Directors to reflect the real user
> population as closely as practicable. We have until April 23 to come up with a
> better plan. Any suggestions?
Our [INEGroup] is to have a flat model here. That geographic
should be sought but not mandated.
> Diane Cabell
> ICANN Membership Advisory Committee
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Roberto,
> > ...
> > > > No more than 2 Directors may come from the same Geographic
> > > > Region (requires an amendment to New Art. VI, Sec. 2(a) of the
> > > > By-laws, which provides that all 3 Directors must come from
> > > > different geographic regions
> > > >
> > > Agree, provided that the Geographic Region that can provide 2 Directors is
> > > either Africa or Latin America ;>).
> > >
> > > Jokes apart, I strongly disagree with this modification of ICANN's bylaws
> > > for the reasons already posted in other occasions. May I only note that,
> > > IMHO, there's very little chance that ICANN will modify its bylaws in this
> > > sense (and therefore this proposal seems a little demagogic to me).
> > We have to live in the real world. We have a lot of experience now in
> > looking for protocol development experts for seats in the IESG and
> > the IAB, and we know that the ICANN geographic condition is
> > essentially impossible to meet. The situation is quite different
> > for the DNSO and ASO, where there is no doubt that experts are to
> > be found in all regions.
> > Personally, I'd advocate having no geographical rule whatever for
> > the PSO-nominated Directors.
> > Brian (sitting on the island that Europe is cut off from...)
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208