At 01:04 PM 5/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
>The page information for the Proposed Interim Policy for
>Geographic Diversity on the ICANN Board of Directors
><http://www.icann.org/geo-diversity.html> indicates it was created
>on May 17th. I did not notice the discussion surrounding its
>formation nor an announcement of its existence.
Funniest thing happened on the way to Berlin. I'd have sworn that
just a day or two ago, I saw the post from David Post concerning
the Advisory Committee for Independent Review and its "Interim
Report," with a URL to read it and post comments; the Report
put geographic diversity dead last, so to speak, after fundamental
qualification of the individuals, but now that's front burner. So I
have it figured out: that Mike fellow does not have just one back
bedroom - now den from which ICANN operates, he has three or four
more in the basement, and the fundamental ICANN rule is that they all
work independently, making their own hot button rules, and none of
the denizens of den A can ever talk to those in B, etc. That is,
unless someone could explain why directors should be geographically
defined while independent review panel members should not.
Bill Lovell
However, this
>proposal is on the Berlin agenda. If adopted, it may have more
>impact on the composition of the board and its reflection of our
>various interests than anything else to be considered in Berlin.
>I object to the proposal and the manner it is being handled.
>
>Geography would be a minor influence on my vote for directors. The
>same is true for everyone, here. But, the authors of this
>proposal have raised geography above all other interests. Is this
>wise? Or, could it be a tragic mistake?
>
>The primary "geographic" concern is language. But, nothing will
>change in this regard as a result of the proposed policy. You
>will still
>get directors from five hugh geographic regions speaking
>English (which remains the "universal solvent"). So,
>language is not the issue.
>
><Q. In what other languages does ICANN currently publish its
>information?>
>
>The proposed policy on geographic diversity
><http://www.icann.org/geo-diversity.html> provides
>for a director from each of 5 regions and four
>elected at-large. Thus, geography trumps all
>other forms of diversity (especially if the four "at-large" seats
>have staggered terms). There will be no proportional
>representation and no cumulative voting. It will be "winner take
>all" in
>5 of the 9 races if the 4 at-large seats are elected
>in the same year. If the "at-large" contests are staggered over
>three years, all 9 races will be head-to-head, winner take all.
>
>As a result, the general assembly will be neutralized. There
>won't be any way for interests or coalitions to affect policy
>through the electoral process. We will just be electing names,
>not representatives of our various interests.
>
>If people do not believe they have a realistic means of affecting
>policy, they will not bother to join ICANN nor vote in its
>elections. We will not have 100,000 members which some said would
>protect us from capture.
>
>Is this proposal likely to accomplish what the community wants? I
>think not.
>Is it too late to stop this train? There is only one way to find
>out, and now is the time to try. Today is the deadline for
>comments (which may be sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>).
>
>Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
>Internet Texoma
