[Comment-Geo] Regional caps

[Diane Cabell <cabell@mama-tech.com>]

I urge that the issue of the cap on the number of at-large members from
any one region be deferred for further study by the proposed At-large
Membership Council, or, if not, that the cap be raised from 2 to 4.

If each region is guaranteed at least one representative, this will
provide a reasonable, if not perfect, assurance that the interests of
all of them will be voiced on the Board of Directors.  Beyond that, IMHO
it would be more important for the Board to represent, as accurately as
possible, the actual membership population if it is to have the
confidence of that body.

Caps distort this accuracy.  Unless the regions are defined based on
fairly equal user populations (rather than on geographical units), caps
will permit unfair over-representation to regions without many users.
This in turn impedes consideration of the more complex diversity of
issues that exist among the populations with more complex use patterns.
Since the caps essentially give both seats to the most populous nation
within each region, they also inhibit the ability of minorities within
the various regions from acquiring a voice on the Board by pooling their
resources for one "small nation" candidate.

Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA

Proposed by-law:

> The other 4 At-Large Directors will be elected globally by all eligible ICANN electors. The only geographic
> restriction on the Global At-Large Directors is a rule that no more than 2 come from the same region.
>