[At-Large] ICANN Board Nomination
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
More information about the At-Large