[At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS

[Karl Auerbach]

Alan Greenberg wrote:

> ... Whether that means all directors actually 
> agreed with the policy, or none felt that it was sufficiently dangerous 
> that the Board should overrule the GNSO, I cannot say.

Well, a board of directors does and must reserve to itself the ultimate 
final word on things.  A good board can, however, arrange things so that 
that authority needs to be used only rarely.

There is a middle ground - A question whether to approve/deny a measure 
that comes before the board may be evaluated not on its merits but 
rather on whether the creation of that measure occurred using the rules 
and procedures that the board has defined.

In other words, one way to define a well run organization is to measure 
whether the board delegates its powers to its executives with sufficient 
specificity of procedure that the board's main question is whether those 
executives (and their staff) have followed those procedures.  If those 
procedures are followed the outcome is presumed valid (and subject to 
adoption by the board) unless there is a concrete showing that some ill 
events occurred.  (Being trained as an attorney I'm kind of familiar 
with the nuances of presumptions, so I hope that I haven't totally 
confused everyone.)

Unfortunately in ICANN everything bubbles up to the board in its full 
glory and the board has to expend the effort to make a full review. 
That's not very efficient.

ICANN's board has been too weak to require that its executives and their 
staff adhere to processes onto which the board can endow a presumption 
of validity.

It is hard being a good board member - which is why I support the 
creation of a fund to reimburse board members for certain expenses, such 
as the hiring of legal, financial, or technical advisors or support 
staff, or things like board-member websites, etc.  (And no, I don't 
believe that the chairman deserves a larger fund - all board members 
have to work equally hard to fulfill their duties.)

What this means for the at-large is that we, the public and community of 
internet users, need to find means to enhance the seating of board 
members who are willing to work to change ICANN so that it is better 
structured to serve the public interest, whether that be through better 
policymaking or by being a less expensive institution.  My own answer to 
that has been to advocate more direct elections of board members. 
Others among us suggest other, perhaps more effective, approaches.  The 
main point is that we are all in the same boat - we all want a better 
internet and a better ICANN that serves the interests of the internet 
public rather than the interests of a relatively few ICANN industrial 
"stakeholders".

I'm sorry if I keep coming back to procedure over the substance of 
particular matters - it's just that I think that over the long run 
procedure tends to dictate what becomes substance.

		--karl--