| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Boardsquatting: the sequel?
posted by tbyfield on Sunday November 24 2002, @07:13PM
On 24 November -- a Sunday, oddly -- ICANN published a "Proposed Transition Article of New Bylaws Recommended by the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform." If you liked ICANN's "initial board" followed by its "interim board," you'll love this announcement of a new "Transition Board" and "New Board." Amazingly, though, the statement seems to suggest that the boardmembers elected by the At Large -- including the infamous Karl Auerbach, who had the temerity to exercise his duties in a proactive fashion, even in the face of vigorous staff opposition, and the notorious hacker-activist Andy Mueller-Maguhn -- may continue to serve on ICANN's "Transition Board"...
|
|
 |
|
1. For the period beginning on the adoption of this Transition Article and ending on the Effective Date and Time of the New Board, as defined in paragraph 5 of this Section 2, the Board of Directors of the Corporation ("Transition Board") shall consist of the members of the Board who would have been Directors under the Old Bylaws immediately after the conclusion of the annual meeting in 2002, except that the At-Large members of the Board under the Old Bylaws shall also serve as members of the Transition Board.
...for a while, at least:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article VI, Section 12 of the New Bylaws, vacancies on the Transition Board shall not be filled. The Board Committees existing on the date of adoption of this Transition Article shall continue in effect, subject to any change in Board Committees or their membership that the Transition Board may adopt by resolution. [emphasis added]
There are other gems buried in the statement -- for example, a provisional extension of ICANN's agreement with the increasingly restive RIRs (Section 3) and a kludge to deal with ccTLD input (Section 4) -- but we'll need to wait for expert commentary from the community at large before we can sort out exactly what's afoot. The fact that ICANN released this document on a Sunday, rather than on its preferred news-dampening Friday, is itself enough to make us wonder what's afoot.
Of this announcement, an Anonymous ICANN Watcher asks:
I read this to mean that Karl's term is extended. I suppose the question now is... is this a good thing, or does that make Karl a "boardsquatter?" Should Karl use the extended time to try to do some good, or resign on principle?
The answers remain to be seen...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Boardsquatting: the sequel?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 5 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
It is no surprise that ICANN has kept all nine non SO Board members.
No doubt they would like Karl gone but if ERC tried to choose some at large directors to stay and some to go they would attract a firestorm of criticism and totally undermine confidence in any future nominating committee.
Now next option would be to have all five at large directors go. However it would be politically untenable to remove them and leave in place the four original unelected directors or board squatters.
So if one wants Karl to go you have to remove all nine non SO Board members and that would leave the Board too small so they have kicked for touch and left them all there.
DPF
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
No, I don't think you will.
I think you will see the transition board, probably without Karl as I think he'll resign in protest, until the nominating committee is in place.
You will then see the nominating committee nominate almost all of the existing board members (without the elected members), under the reasoning that they've done a good job to date, and there is no reason to let them go now and lose their experience.
Realise, please, that I do not agree with this logic, but it is how I expect ICANN to proceed.
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
| | 1 reply beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
