[At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination

Karl Auerbach karl at cavebear.com
Wed Aug 25 02:49:58 UTC 2010

On 08/24/2010 06:21 PM, John R. Levine wrote:

> ... If
> ICANN paid the rest of the board, like they now pay the chair, the pool of
> candidates would be much larger.  (In case anyone's wondering, it's quite
> typical for large organizations to pay their board members, either a fixed
> annual amount, or an amount per meeting.)

I have long advocated that ICANN pay board members.

The time is *more* than a half time job - I typically spent at least 60 
hours a week on ICANN matters when I was on the board.

And it is expensive.

And - and I consider this *very* important - each board member ought to 
have his/her own independent legal counsel.  The ICANN corporate counsel 
owes his duty to the corporation and not to any individual board member. 
  And the risks of being on a non-profit board are quite substantial - 
for instance just take a look at "intermediate sanctions" in the wikipedia:

One of the problems with paying board members is that there are 
California state and US Federal statutes that give degrees of immunity 
to directors who are not paid.  Being paid may put those immunities at 
risk - navigating through that morass is one of those reasons why each 
board member needs his/her own legal counsel.

> The other is that I'm not sure how electable I am, since I am from a
> rather over-represented geographic and ethnic group.

ICANN long ago promised as a condition of its formation that it would 
have a majority of its directors chosen by and accountable to the 
public.  Were that promise ever kept there would be enough seats, if not 
for everyone, for at least a reasonable cross-section.

But with one seat there is a risk that the community of internet users - 
which is whose seat is up for selection, not the ALAC's - might be 
tempted to engage in internal battles.  It would be good if that could 
be avoided.


More information about the At-Large mailing list