Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] - Price caps - was: The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog

> On 01.07.2019, at 22:12, Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 7/1/19 12:36 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote
>> So, in short, how can ICANN get rid od the supposedly failing 
>> multi-stakeholder model and go back to what Paul R. Letho defines 
>> â??democracyâ???
>> Or, in simple words, how would a non-multi-stakeholder model be designed and 
>> implemented for ICANN?
> 
> That's pretty easy: Resurrect the system of nominations and elections from 
> year 2000 (but expanded to cover the entire board-of-directors.)  Despite the 
> denials of some, that system worked.  Yes, there were problems with the 
> registration - including several caused by ICANN itself.  But that could have 
> been cured on subsequent rounds.
> 
> The claim that in some regions (most particularly Asia/Pacific) that some 
> large corporations "motivated" their employees probably had some truth.  But 
> absent those elections those corporations in a "stakeholder" (or lobbyist) 
> system most likely would have simply acted through the more certain and 
> direct tool of those captive lobbyist/stakeholders than through the less 
> certain tool of trying to influence individual electors.
> 
> Influence by those with size and wealth so that they can engage in any forum 
> at any time and at any location will always be a problem, no matter the 
> system.
> 
> In addition, to elections themselves, ICANN should put into place the 
> protections afforded by law to allow the voting members to get the 
> information they need to make informed choices and to take certain limited 
> actions in certain extraordinary circumstances. The protections are not 
> unreasonable; they have been honed on the stone of long practice and 
> experience with ICANN-like organizations.
> 
> This change would a representative system, not a direct one - the real 
> authority (and responsibility) between elections would remain where it ought 
> to be (and legally is): vested in the board of directors.  At the next 
> election the voters can replace those directors who fail to meet the voters' 
> standards or whose pattern of decisions is not in accord with their desires.
> 
> Lobbyists would have to convince voters or convince the board members 
> (hopefully via open and transparent means.)
> 
> By-the-way, in that sense, we are all lobbyists for our own interests.  But 
> as individuals we are all lobbyists of roughly the same size.  We can't say 
> the same about institutional lobbyists/stakeholders who are paid to advocate 
> for the institutional goals 24x7x365.  Better a system based on rough 
> equality than a system that naively presumes that giants don't have greater 
> strength.
> 
>         --karl--
> 

_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your 
personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with 
the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website 
Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman 
link above to change your membership status or configuration, including 
unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether 
(e.g., for a vacation), and so on.