Bret Fausett on ICANN Reform [according to Weinberg]
Date: Friday May 24 2002, @04:30AM
Topic: ICANN Staff and Structure

ICANN Blogger Supreme Bret Fausett has posted his own proposal for a new ICANN structure. He suggests that ICANN was headed in more or less the right direction before release of the Lynn plan. ICANN's structure, therefore, should stay pretty much the way it is now, with the following exceptions:

1. The Board should include six elected at-large directors;
2. A new ccTLD supporting Organization should get three directors of its own;
3. There should be an independent review mechanism . . . (more overleaf)

4. All Board meetings, whether in-person or telephonic, should be webcast; and
5. There should be an individual domain name registrants' constituency within the DNSO.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Bret Fausett on ICANN Reform [according to Weinberg] | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 6 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Threshold:
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re: Bret Fausett on ICANN Reform [according to Wei
by Jon_Weinberg on Friday May 24 2002, @05:04AM (#6496)
User #16 Info | www.threecats.net
tbyfield has posted a longer and more insightful story about Bret's proposal. Read that one.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Thanks...and more...
by lextext on Friday May 24 2002, @07:27AM (#6500)
User #6 Info | http://www.lextext.com
Jon, thanks for the highlights list. I was meaning to do the same thing, but haven't had the time to do it yet. Glad you beat me to it. Here's another document, just posted: My Cost-Effective, Trustworthy Global Election.

--Bret

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Bret Fausett on ICANN Reform [according to Wei
by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday May 28 2002, @12:31AM (#6527)
User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
"3. There should be an independent review mechanism"

Surely an Independent Review Commission was essential from the start of ICANN, so why has it not been put in place even three years later?!?

Even if actual Law, there is nearly always an Appeal and Review process available - for an organisation that claims to make and maintain Civil Law, surely they must also be made to have this in place?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.




  • This article comes from ICANNWatch
    http://www.icannwatch.org/

    The URL for this story is:
    http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/24/083036