[At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large Director Appointment Process

[Karl Auerbach]

On 09/24/2009 01:29 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS
> infrastructure. except to nurture a community of Internet users that has
> enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN?

I do not believe that one should have to join the company union in order 
to vote for the directors.

"Nurture" is an interesting word - it suggests paternalism and a 
channeling of those being nurtured so that they behave and think in ways 
pleasing and acceptable to the one giving nurture.

> So let me get this straight. You're saying that ICANN went to the whole
> effort to create this multi-level structure, to provide bi-directional
> information flow between itself and the public, that has taken multiple
> years to mature -- only to bypass all of it when picking a "public board
> rep"?

ICANN went through the trouble to create the incredible Byzantine 
structures of the ALAC, its children, and the ombudsman in order to have 
a cover story when it erased the open and operating system of public 
"selections" (really elections) for board seats.

I know this very well - I occupied one of the five publicly selected 
board seats that was erased in order to make way for the ALAC and its 
zero board seats.  I got a front row, insider, privileged view of of the 
septic conception.

>> Membership in some ICANN approved organization ought not to be a
>> pre-condition to the ability to run-for, vote for, or occupy a seat on
>> the ICANN board of directors or any other ICANN body.
>
> Sorry, can't agree. I'm with you that the candidates do not have to come
> from the ALS/RALO/ALAC community. But I have no problems in using this
> existing elaborate network for selecting the individual, as opposed to
> creating some brand new system to determine eligible voters. The last
> thing that "ICANN AT-Large" needs is more infrastructure.

I agree that ICANN does not need more infrastructure of its own - which, 
by-the-way, is in itself a strong argument for the entire ALAC system to 
be detached from ICANN (and ICANN's funding.)  But that is not to say 
that the public ought to be denied the ability to form, and re-form, its 
own aggregations as people see fit.

I would work against any system that required a candidate seeking 
position on ICANN's board to obtain approval from any ALAC/RALO/ALS as a 
condition of having his/her name on the ballot.  Nor should the 
ALAC/RALO/ALS system have the ability to simply place names on the 
ballot in any way that is less difficult than that faced by an 
independent candidate.

		--karl--