
A Shadow ICANN Board?
Date: Thursday November 20 2003, @09:19PM Topic: Board of Directors
cambler writes "GeorgeK suggested a "Shadow ICANN" in another thread. I misread his suggestion as overly-broad, thinking he meant the whole of ICANN, and suggested, instead, a "Shadow Board" that would debate, openly, and vote upon the same issues and topics before the actual ICANN board.
The clarification from George that this is what he actually meant means that he has proposed what remains an excellent idea, if even it is an academic exercise.
George has registered ShadowICANN.com (and net/org as well), so I presume he plans to actually implement this. I'm all for it; I think it'll be a grand experiment.
Perhaps some discussion on how he can best bring this to reality is in order?"
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
A Shadow ICANN Board?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 4 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Well, we could start by having people nominate themselves or other people they think would do a good job. Internet users would then elect shadow board members using an open, transparent, but secure system (i.e., binding votes to an IP address plus require registration).
This sounds like a good idea. I'm assuming George isn't going to incorporate as a not-for-profit organization, or is he? I'm sure the effort could still have by-laws without being incorporated. It's all just an experiment, anyway.
Nonetheless, a fascinating idea.
Perhaps, it could even be expanded to have shadow advisory committees. :)
Cheers, Doug Doug Mehus
http://dmehus.posterous.com/ [posterous.com]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
 |
George has registered ShadowICANN.com (and net/org as well), so I presume he plans to actually implement this.
I presume that ShadowICANN.org is actually intended to be the primary URL of this noncommercial effort, with the others just as protective registrations? Using the .com version as the primary URL (as implied by the quoted sentence above) wouldn't make much sense.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 1 reply beneath your current threshold. |
|