[At-Large] The Appointment Process

[Karl Auerbach]

On 09/24/2009 10:11 AM, Danny Younger wrote:

> while many of us still prefer the election model, the Board has only
> agreed to an appointment model.

The word "appoint" as used in the resolution is not specific regarding 
the person or body that does the appointing nor does it specify the 
method through which the choice of who to appoint is made.

An elective system fits within that the confines of an appointive 
process - the public uses an elective process to chose the person that 
"the public" appoints to the board.  (I don't care whether "elective" 
means direct elections or indirect, as long as the latter has no more 
than one layer of intermediary.)

I see great danger of "nominating committee" processes.  What works for 
the IETF does not work at all in the highly politicized world of ICANN; 
we've seen how ICANN's board is so sheepishly passive that it has lost 
control of its "staff".

I strongly believe in the "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take 
it anymore" principle.  ICANN is terrified of it and has spent a decade 
building barricades against the public will.  One of those barricades is 
the aristocratic view that only those who participate in ICANN's forums 
are worthy enough to make informed and intelligent choices about ICANN.

The ALAC system would possibly collapse were ICANN to withhold funding 
and "staff" assistance - it has not been able to create an independent 
system of support; it has never over the years of its existence been 
able to garner even a tiny percentage of the size and energy that were 
created for the public ICANN elections of year 2000.  If it can not 
garner sufficient public support just to exist one has to ask whether it 
is right or proper to empower it to be the one and only channel for the 
expression of the public viewpoint.

It would be odd if that dependent ALAC had more appointive power than a 
self-organized and self-funded group of internet users or a number of 
internet users who come together in their support of a person to 
articulate their point of view.

People ought to take a look at the ICANN elections of year 2000.  Here 
in the US/Canada there was a robust election among 7 qualified 
candidates, including luminaries such as Larry Lessig and Barbara 
Simons.  Face-to-face debates were held in several locations across the 
continent.  There was a vibrant electronic exchange of viewpoints by the 
candidates and by observers.  ICANN did not contribute a penny into this 
process; rather it grew from the interest of the public in having its 
own voice on the ICANN board.


> I see that you are not keen on having the ALS/RALO/ALAC members make
> the selection.  If broad-based elections are out of the equation,
> what group then, in your view, is most suited to be the appointing
> body?

ICANN exists as a body that is required to serve the public interest. 
That, to my mind, means that the choice *must* be in the hands of the 
public and no other.  And that choice must be made through mechanisms 
that do not require the intercession and blessing of any body that is 
part of the ICANN hierarchy.  The only thing that ICANN should do is to 
provide a system to register the voters, process the election, and count 
the votes.

		--karl--