|
Dear
Ken/All
Firstly
I hope you will excuse me for adding to the debate in a personal manner, but
similarly to you Ken I've not had the opportunity to fully consult with the
ISPCP Constituency. However I find
the underlying rationale for your note quite disturbing and thus feel
compelled to question the basis of your response.
From your statement; 'For if the GNSO voted for its ICANN Board Directors, as the Business
Constituency argues, "one constituency, one vote", one can easily see that such
a vote would be susceptible to capture by those that are not under contract with
ICANN', it implies that you consider any elected
Board member owes allegiance to the Constituencies who supported their election.
That is not the way ICANN should work. To the contrary all Directors should
disassociated themselves from any allegiance to a particular constituency
or group.
It appears that you consider the views of those
parties under contract will only be represented by those Board members they
vote for?
I constantly question the level of paranoia that
comes from those who claim that weighted voting has to be way forward, in order
to protect the interest of those who consider they are unduly impacted by
consensus policies. It begs the question of whether this is a fear or
persecution, malicious intent, misguided thinking (on either side), or the
development of policies that are for the good of the majority
of stakeholders other than those financially impacted by their
implementation.
Best
Regards
Tony
Holmes
ISPCP Names Council
Representative
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 24 February 2003 22:51 To: vcerf@xxxxxxx; apisan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; touton@xxxxxxxxx; lynn@xxxxxxxxx Cc: names council; joe sims; Rita Rodin; Registrars Subject: [council] Response to Letter Issued by Executive Committee of the BC Mr. Chairman and members of the
ICANN board.... I am personally
responding here to a letter you have received from Executive Committee of
the Commercial and Business Users Constituency indicating that it was "their
understanding" that the weighted voting provided for in the new ICANN Bylaws
does not apply to the selection of the two directors to be chosen from the GNSO
and alluding that had they known of the recent interpretation of the Bylaws from
the General Counsel, they may not have supported the weighted
voting. The BC Executive
Committee also argues that ICANN should revert
to its previous method of voting, "one constituency one vote", for these
directors, because "elections do not occur too often".... (Whatever that
means!) I feel
quite strongly that these 11th hour arguments have no merit. I
am also quite concerned that they only tend to confuse & obfuscate the ICANN
reform effort and all the hard work and compromise from all sides that it
represents. I support the General Counsel's interpretation of the Bylaws with respect to weighted voting and believe that it is the accurate interpretation as to how the GNSO is to select its two ICANN Board of Directors. From the inception of
the ICANN Reform effort, the Registrar Constituency acknowledged that reform was
needed both of the ICANN Policy Process as well as the methodology used in
selecting ICANN Board Directors. The Board, (in it's wisdom) acknowledged that not all
stakeholders are equally affected by the policies recommended and passed by the
ICANN Board of Directors. They recognized that, not only are the Contracted
service providers the principal source for funding that ICANN receives, but
they, unlike any other stakeholders, are contractually bound to comply with
any ICANN consensus policies. It would
be inconsistent, to say the least, to have an equalized voting structure that
recognizes the need, as the Board has, for weighted voting in the policy
process, but not in the selection of ICANN Board Directors within the
GNSO, who may be called upon to make such
decisions. For if the GNSO voted for its ICANN Board Directors, as the Business Constituency argues, "one constituency, one vote", one can easily see that such a vote would be susceptible to capture by those that are not under contract with ICANN. I believe that we can safely assume that the number of non-contracting constituencies will increase over the next couple of years (adding a small business constituency, an academics constituency, an individuals constituency, etc. as was hinted at during the reform process) as compared with two contracting parties. We need
to have the comfort of knowing that the ICANN Board Directors selected from the
GNSO are truly representative of the TOTAL GNSO community, which
includes not only user constituencies, but also contracting parties
The Registrar
community is confident that this process will work if the safeguards
proposed by the ERC and adopted by the ICANN Board in Shanghai
are kept in place as we move forward with a reformed
ICANN.
Due to the late hour in
which the issue has been raised by the Executive Committee of the BC, it was
impossible to fully consult with my Constituency prior to composing this letter,
but based on the Registrar Constituency support given to the ERC and their
efforts in drafting the by-laws, I am confident that this document represent the
feelings of our members.
Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this matter
Ken Stubbs Names Council Representative |