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

[Roberto Gaetano]

At the time of the NomCom Review I posted a comment recommending that the NomCom selects all the members of the ICANN Board. The rationale for that was that the SO-appointed Directors were in a permanent conflict because although they had a fiduciary responsibility to ICANN they were nevertheless obliged to follow the interest of their own organization if they wanted to be re-elected. We had in the past exemplary cases of independence by Directors, but also cases of the contrary.
There were also other considerations, but at this early stage I just want to throw this idea as brainstorming, we can develop it later if other people find it worth exploring.
Cheers,
R

> On 22.11.2019, at 01:24, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> 
> One place to begin thinking about goals is to look at the list of things in this ICANN document:
> 
> http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm
> 
> Another place might be to look at some of the rather mild proposals that we made in the BWG (Boston Working Group) submission way back when:
> 
> https://cavebear.com/archive/bwg/submission-letter.html
> 
> Personally I'd like a return to the original commitment made during ICANN's formation that at least a majority of ICANN board of directors be chosen (indirectly or directly) by the community of internet users.
> 
> It could be illuminating if people here sat down, fired up their hopes and imaginations, and set down their vision of what a properly formed ICANN, unfettered by the present structure, would be.
> 
> How those hopes could be achieved is a hard question.
> 
> The lawyer in me tends to think of means that resemble the fabled use of a 2x4 to get the attention of a reluctant mule.
> 
> Perhaps one might want to coax ICANN to recognize that it is (or at least was in year 2000) a membership based public-benefit/non-profit per California Law.
> 
> Another possible means would be to revisit the grounds upon which ICANN receives its US Federal tax exemption (501(c)(3)).  It's been years since I last looked, but initially it was, if I remember correctly, "to lessen the burdens of government" (for the US gov't.)  If that's still the foundation, it would be one that is filled with cracks and crumbling.
> 
> Those might not be good approaches - they might engender a lot of resentment (they would certainly engender a lot of legal fees paid by ICANN to Jones Day.  ;-)
> 
>     --karl--
> 
> On 11/21/19 3:10 PM, bzs at theworld.com wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm being naive but what seems to me is missing in this
>> conversation is: By what process might this ship be righted?
>> 
>> Multiple choice is acceptable.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.