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. 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
