Question: ICANN resolutions indicated your position will be eliminated in a few years; a study will be made to determine if this should be done. Wording seemed to put the cart before the horse, regardless of intent. What do you think of the resolution and need for at-large board members?

Nominee Replies

Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-10-09 20:28:59 I think at-large members on the board is crucial to the balance of the board, and to assure openness. I would be a strong support of the at-large members' representative, and push to have an election for the balance next year. Barbara Simons - posted on 2000-10-09 18:51:24 I think it would be terrible if the At-Large Board Member Positions were to be eliminated. My hope is that ICANN will not take this step. But if they do, the at-large members will need to make themselves heard loud and clear in the press and in the U.S. Congress. Harris Miller - posted on 2000-10-09 11:40:29 I support at-large members on the ICANN Board. Karl Auerbach - posted on 2000-10-09 09:01:22 ICANN's attempt to eliminate the at-large is unconscionable. Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-10-08 20:29:05 We need at large membership for several reasons. First, to give democratic legitimacy to ICANN's actions. Second, to hear new ideas from groups who do not have current representation on the board (the average Internet user and international constituencies, for example). Third, to act as a check on interests who already have voice on the board. Lyman Chapin - posted on 2000-10-08 15:19:36 At-large representation is important not just for legitimacy (representation of all affected constituencies) but to give ICANN the richest possible gene pool as it confronts questions that have no easy answers. At least half of ICANN's directors should be elected by the at-large membership. Trying to pre-program the future to be just like the past is a really bad idea.