[At-Large] [BMSPC-2020] Board seat 15 selection

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Tue Nov 19 06:43:20 UTC 2019

Dear Wolfgang,

thank you for your follow-up. Please find my comments inline:

On 18/11/2019 22:05, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
> Bildt proposed that At Large membership should be open to "individual
> domain name holders". The idea was to form six regional At Large
> Councils (with five members) and a global At Large Council (with 12
> members/two from each of the six regions). Recognized At Large members
> would have a right to vote for the five members of their regional
> council and also vote for the regional Board director. The plan was to
> have a balance in the ICANN board among "developers" (technical
> community), providers (business) and users (civil society) of
> services, with governments in an advisory capacity.

A significant mistake was made by the Bildt Committee and that's to
propose restricting membership to "individual domain name holders". The
DNS is used by all users, not only by domain name holders. In fact,
there is a designation for individuals that hold a large number of
domain names and that's "domainer". So in fact Bildt was proposing ICANN
to close itself into its microcosm of domain name businesses and
domainers, quite the contrary from the openness that was displayed when
ICANN first started.

This was a significant step back for end users and I understand how some
supporters of ICANN Version 1 were irritated enough to leave the process
altogether. They felt betrayed. As someone who had been actively
involved in supporting the "other" proposal, the Internet Ad-Hoc
Committee (IAHC - https://icannwiki.org/IAHC ), resulting in a gTLD MoU
( https://icannwiki.org/GTLD-MoU ) the debate became political very
quickly, with concerns by US politicians that the Root and its resources
would leave the USA. Upon hindsight, perhaps the IAHC's proposal was not
end-user friendly, but I remember that one of the significant points
made in the presentation of ICANN, along with the Green and White
papers, was that it had a very strong end user component, through its
election process. I think that a lot of people, reading this, myself
included, shifted our view from supporting a gTLD MoU future to an ICANN
future when this end user component was promoted. What happened during
the re-organisation of ICANN was, in my view, nothing short of capture,
and it took me until 2008 to accept it. BTW the DNSO mailing list
discussions were toxic.
Kindest regards,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20191119/de636090/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list