[ALAC] Public Comment on Board Liaison compensation

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue May 27 21:07:09 UTC 2014


The comment is now posted. The only change was to remove "for 
non-Chairs" from the second to last paragraph. It sounded like I was 
demanding Chair compensation, and although I might support that, it 
was not the intent of this comment.

Alan

At 27/05/2014 11:58 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>Regarding: 
>https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-compensation-2014-05-02-en
>
>As discussed on the ALAC call today, I will be posting the following 
>statement (subject to minor editing) to the ICANN Public Comment.
>
>I encourage anyone who supports this to submit a comment to 
><mailto:comments-bylaws-amend-compensation-02may14 at icann.org>Submit 
>Comment to Forum. I also understand that the ALAC is itself may 
>submit a statement as well (either support or a separate statement).
>
>------------------
>
>I am a member of the ALAC and the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, but I am 
>making this comment purely in my own capacity.
>
>I believe that, subject to a number of related considerations, it is 
>reasonable to compensate Board members, including Liaisons, and the 
>level of compensation suggested is reasonable.
>
>I do note that in the name of simplification, the report suggests an 
>increase for Board members who are not Board Committee Chairs by as 
>much as 29%.
>
>However, the related considerations mentioned above, in my mind, 
>cannot be ignored.
>
>- One of the reasons always sited for such compensation is that 
>having no compensation limits the available candidates who will make 
>themselves available for the ICANN Board. Given that there has never 
>been an AC/SO seat vacant due to lack of candidates, there is often 
>competition for such seats, and the Nominating Committee regularly 
>says that it has had to make very difficult decisions in selecting 
>Board members since there was a surplus of eminently qualified 
>candidates, in the name of transparency and accountability, it would 
>be good to see hard evidence of the rationale.
>
>- The introduction of Board compensation widened the gulf between 
>Board members and other volunteers within ICANN. The proposed change 
>widens that gulf further. There is no question that many Board 
>members work very hard on behalf of ICANN, and that dedication eats 
>into their other professional activities and personal life. However, 
>the same can be said for many ICANN volunteers. There are many in 
>the community who work equally hard and dedicate the same kind of 
>hours as Board members. Indeed, it has been claimed that many in the 
>community put in far more time and effort than some Board members. I 
>believe that this claim is accurate.
>
>SO and AC Chairs have been identified as meeting the above levels of 
>commitment, and indeed many or perhaps all do. However, there are 
>others who do not receive the existing benefits given to Board 
>members and AC/SO Chairs who also dedicate unending hours and effort to ICANN.
>
>Board and now Liaison compensation without any new consideration of 
>the contributions of others denigrates the efforts of the rest of 
>the ICANN volunteers. Such acknowledgment for non-Chairs need not be 
>financial compensation - there are a host of other benefits that 
>Board members get that other volunteers (and Chairs) would really appreciate.
>
>Although I understand the difficulty of identifying those who put 
>Herculean efforts into ICANN from those who are lower level 
>contributors, we cannot continue to widen the gulf between the 
>privileged few and the rest of volunteers and expect there not to be 
>repercussions.




More information about the ALAC mailing list