[At-Large] ICANN oversight
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Sat Oct 10 19:35:15 UTC 2015
comments in the text below:
On 10/10/2015 19:58, Bill Silverstein wrote:
> On Sat, October 10, 2015 10:51 am, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> On 10/10/2015 18:17, Bill Silverstein wrote:
>>> ICANN needs to have people that will oversee its actions, or lack of.
>> And you are saying that the best people to perform this oversight will
>> be the industry which you ask ICANN to regulate?
>> Kindest regards,
> No. That is how the problems occurred in the first place, or at least in
> Maybe one or two people from the industry that ICANN is supposed to
> regulate but some from the general registration public and the general
> internet using public (who understand the internet.)
Well -- IMHO, the current CCWG Accountability Proposal proposes that the
Board could be over-ruled, or dismissed, or individual Board members
could be kicked out by a Committee whose composition is such that the
GNSO & CCNSO, both composed primarily of people who are in the business
of domain names, could have a majority irrespective of the Advisory
Committees like the ALAC. The ALAC might have only 1 person on the ICANN
Board, at least the NomCom selected Board members are somehow
independent of the Domain Name Industry.
That's what bothers me deeply in a membership model that allocates votes
to SOs/ACs instead of working on Consensus.
More information about the At-Large