Question: In your opinion, should there be NINE at large directors to allow a check and balance of conflicting interests?

Nominee Replies

Lyman Chapin - posted on 2000-09-26 09:13:47 ICANN was created amid assurances that it would provide for meaningful and substantial at-large participation. At least half of the board should be elected by the at-large membership. If the 5-region proportional arrangement for at-large directors is maintained, it might be simpler to elect ten, rather than nine, directors at large. Donald Langenberg - posted on 2000-09-24 10:51:11 I don't know if nine is the appropriate number, but I do strongly believe that the composition of the governing board of any organization whose purpose is to serve the interests of all its stakeholders in a balanced way must itself be balanced in a manner that reflect that purpose. The example most familiar to me is that of the governing board of a public university system, e.g., the University of California, the State University of New York, or my own University System of Maryland. For such a system, the primary stakeholders are the citizens of the state. Secondary stakeholders include political subdivisions of the state, political leaders and bodies, the state's business community, alumni, the institutions that make up the system, and their students, faculty, and staff. Achieving such balance in the board is a fine art. When it is accomplished the organization propers. When it is not, it suffers. Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-09-23 21:38:44 Why stop at 9? How about a majority (10 or more). In fact, we should consider whether all seats should be at-large. The other groups represented in supporting organization director seats are also allowed to register for at-large membership. So the at-large membership is made already made up, in part, of these interests. To the extent that specialized input is needed from the other groups, an agency, advisory, or working group arrangement would be best. ICANN's structure should be changed to eliminate any preferential treatment to any group. Having a majority, if not all, directors elected at large will eliminate the preference. This does not mean that there would necessarily be less business, technological, and intellectual property interests. Those groups may be quite effective in organizing and making their presence felt in a broader at-large membership/director process. But at least it won't be hardwired as it is now. And if business, technological, and intellectual property interests do dominate, then at least it will carry some face legitimacy. But I would expect the membership, and the directors they elect, to be quite diverse and representative of the whole Internet using community. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-23 20:45:29 I believe there should be ten elected at large members, and if I am elected, my first act would be to propose an amendment to the (already) amended bylaws to hold an election next year for the balance. ICANN is in the process of studying whether the at-large process makes sense. I believe before they make a vote on that, there should be a full slate of elected at large members. Barbara Simons - posted on 2000-09-23 15:55:15 There should be at least nine at large directors. I think it's unfortunate that only five are being selected during this election. I do not understand the logic behind electing only five instead of all nine. If I am elected to the Board, perhaps someone will explain that to me.