[At-Large] ICANN oversight

Christopher Wilkinson cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
Sat Oct 10 20:57:34 UTC 2015

Olivier is right about this.


On 10 Oct 2015, at 21:35, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Dear Bill,
> 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,
>>> Olivier
>> No. That is how the problems occurred in the first place, or at least in
>> public.
>> 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.
> Kind regards,
> Olivier
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the At-Large mailing list