[At-Large] Voting seat for CEO Was: Re: ICANN75: Mandatory Funded Traveler Registration for Roberto Gaetano

Thu Jul 28 22:22:29 UTC 2022

It is common in the discourse at ICANN to look at various existing power blocs and see how they can be improved.  The discussion whether the CEO should vote or not is an example. Unfortunately, this is just one tree, and the improvements ICANN needs are more structural in nature and require a view of the forest.

I can see the point of having technical supporting organizations, who do after all have some expertise to offer decision makers. 

The other groupings at ICANN are not providing expert advice, they are providing lobbying.  But instead of lobbying ICANN with a common voice, they fight with each other.  This is what happens when people are divided into groups.  I’m not making this up, there are numerous studies showing that simply dividing a group of people into two groups will cause them to quite quickly become hostile toward each other other.  

The best-known psychological study of this phenomenon is called The Robbers Cave, see https://www.thoughtco.com/robbers-cave-experiment-4774987 <https://www.thoughtco.com/robbers-cave-experiment-4774987>.  In it, two randomly selected groups of boys were sent to a summer camp to see if they would co-operate or fight or something in between. The hypothesis for the study was "when two [or more] groups have conflicting aims… their members will become hostile to each other even though the groups are composed of normal well-adjusted individuals.”  The study showed this to be so.  It also showed that when the two groups were asked to work toward a common goal, hostility decreased substantially. 

ICANN is basically this study on steroids.  Everyone wants to reform ICANN, everyone dislikes the lack of transparency, that secret hallway discussions do more to advance causes than open debate, that public input is clearly an onerous duty that the staff would much rather avoid, the half-truths and prevarications, and on and on. I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t like these and other characteristics of ICANN the organization. And yet nothing changes.  The reason nothing changes is that these groups are more interested in their turf wars with one another than in tackling the issues with the now-entrenched paranoia and secrecy that characterizes staff interactions with participants. 

If you want to reform ICANN, it has very little to do with who gets a vote on the Board.  If you want to reform it, you have to do away with these groupings and have everyone who is not staff in one big group who can speak with one voice.  This would discourage distrust and hostility, and encourage participants to form common interest with those who feel the same way they do, without worrying about the official position of the intellectual property people, or the registrars, or ALAC, or whoever.  Until the participants feel free to speak with one voice, they won’t, and staff will go on doing whatever they want because there is no will to hold them to account. 

Unless you encourage democracy through structural change that encourages its formation and practice, you’ll never have it, or its attendant virtues such as transparency, co-operation, and the ability to mobilize against a common threat.  

Until that is done, ICANN will continue to be the best governance that money can buy.  

> On Jul 28, 2022, at 10:58 AM, Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
> 
> I do agree with you that the question whether the President CEO gets a *voting* seat on the board of directors is a relatively small matter.  (And I believe that a CEO/President does need to usually sit among the board of directors and speak on matters - his/her input is very important and ought to carry a lot of weight.)
> 
> The road to an improved ICANN is not a short road.  Removing the President/CEO's ex-officio voting power on the board is but one, small step.
> 
> But it is a step.  And it is an easy step.  And it is a step that can be decided now but can put into practice later, perhaps at the next re-making of the employment contract.
> 
> There are harder, bigger steps.  For example, elimination of the nominating committee process, which itself my require as a pre-condition establishment of ICANN as the kind of member based organization described by the California public-benefit/non-profit law that gives legal existence to ICANN and that ICANN so desperately tried to evade in the 1997-2000 time frame.
> 
> The Internet is facing some big issues, issues larger than ICANN itself but for which ICANN may indicate paths best to avoid.  Just as ICANN seems excessively influenced by commercial actors the Internet as a whole is being increasingly influenced by commercial and national actors who care little whether the Internet (capital 'I') becomes a collection of "internets" (lower case 'i'), or whether we continue to use IPv4/6 or something else like 5G or Huawei's new IP protocol designs.  As we push harder for more security we will increasingly need to face the question of maintenance and repair and whether we will need to establish some means, some body of people, who have special authorities and powers to penetrate security to reach in, examine, and manipulate the net.  Such a "priesthood" of privileged actors might not bother large commercial or national interests, but it ought to be of great concern to individuals.  And if our future bodies of i/Internet governance are structured, as is ICANN, to enervate the public voice, or to dilute it under layers of organizations and procedures, then our voice in such decisions will be muted or lost.
> 
>         --karl--
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/28/22 4:54 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> Hello Karl,
>> 
>> I hear you but the last I checked ICANN Board membership is filled by the community in part and indirectly filled by the community(through nomcom) for the rest of the board members. It therefore seem that ICANN profile fits that of an organisation whose CEO should be a voting member. 
>> 
>> I really don't think the CEO power is derived from that single vote; if the CEO is already acting powerful and beyond control of the Board, that single vote won't be the breaker IMO the power must have been wielded elsewhere and perhaps with support of the Board majority 
>> 
>> Regards
>> Sent from my mobile
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>> Every word has consequences.
>> Every silence does too!
>> 
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022, 20:42 Karl Auerbach, <karl at cavebear.com <mailto:karl at cavebear.com>> wrote:
>> I agree with you that the voice of the President of a corporation is often a voice that ought to be heard and considered by the board of directors.
>> 
>> However, a President that is allowed to sit at, hear, and contribute to meetings of the board is not not the same as a President who can do those things *and* vote.
>> 
>> Many, but not all, corporations do find it useful to allow a President/CEO to be a voting board member.
>> 
>> ICANN, however, has long had an imbalance with a weak board facing a powerful executive staff.
>> 
>> In such a situation a staff vote, i.e. the President's vote, on the board, merely increases that imbalance by weakening the chosen board and strengthening the executive staff.
>> 
>> Were ICANN to have a stronger board - a likely result were the board picked by the public through direct elective processes - then perhaps the President could have a vote.  But given the present institutional board selection process it is unwise to increase the staff/executive dominance.
>> 
>>         --karl--
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/27/22 11:19 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>> Hello Roberto,
>>> 
>>> Just as you've noted instances where the CEO may be embarrassed if an issue he voted went a different direction, there are instances that I believe the CEO will be glad he contributed his voice through voting. 
>>> 
>>> The CEO's vote is just 1 out of the other votes to be cast hence if his vote made a difference then you know it's a really contentious matter. In an organisation as ICANN it's not good practice to put the face of the organisation (i.e the CEO in an observer role - non voting).
>>> 
>>> That said, most reasonable CEOs don't actively use their voting right towards a direction, they largely abstain but I think the CEO should have the opportunity to exercise his opinion through voting when he considers it necessary.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Sent from my mobile
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>> Every word has consequences.
>>> Every silence does too!
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022, 10:42 Roberto Gaetano via At-Large, <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
>>> Karl,
>>> 
>>> Following on your “off-topic” (I changed the subject line) I wold like to add a bit of history.
>>> 
>>> You wrote:
>>>> A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors ….
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> When I was chairing the Board Review WG, I argued against having the CEO as a voting member rather than ex-officio observer. Besides any governance model, having to vote on issues that he would have been called to execute could put the CEO in an embarrassing position: what if he voted against, and the motion passed? This was, IMHO, not just a theoretical exercise, but something that could really happen on politically sensitive issues, like the .xxx delegation (in that case, Paul abstained, and the application was rejected by one or two votes).
>>> 
>>> My approach was considered, but the Chair argued that for the current CEO the provision was built in the contract, and could not be changed, but this would have been taken into account for the next CEO. Then I left the Board, and lost track of the later events, but it looks that the situation still remains unchanged.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Roberto
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 26.07.2022, at 21:39, Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I'm going to be somewhat diverging from the main topic....
>>>> 
>>>> On 7/26/22 8:14 AM, Marita Moll wrote:
>>>>> And so it is with ICANN. It exists -- a unique multistakeholder governance system. Lots of things wrong with it. But it exists. So, for those who want to, they can keep working at it, keep looking for improvement, keep challenging the system.
>>>>> 
>>>> I've long been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of governance.  I was horrified when I first saw it just after Jon Postel died, and became more horrified watching Joe Sims of Jones Day ramming it down our collective throats.  In the Boston Working Group proposal for "NewCo" we tried to mitigate some of the worst aspects.
>>>> 
>>>> See https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/ <https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/> for the Boston Working Group proposals.
>>>> 
>>>> A lot of our BWG proposals are still quite relevant, for instance, not putting the President/CEO into a seat on the board of directors and moving some ICANN powers into the Articles of Incorporation and requiring exercise of those powers to be approved by more than merely the board (in those days that larger body could have been "the members" but ICANN sank that ship long ago - but it can be, and ought to be, re-floated.)
>>>> 
>>>> My most recent piece in opposition to stakeholder based systems may be found here:
>>>> 
>>>> Democracy Versus Stakeholderism - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/ <https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/stakeholder_sock_puppet/>
>>>>             --karl--
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> At-Large mailing list
>>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>
>>>> 
>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> At-Large mailing list
>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>
>>> 
>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20220728/c848f24a/attachment-0001.html>