At-Large Representative for Canada and the United States on the
ICANN Board of Directors

Karl Auerbac

Diary - January 22, 2001

I am writing these notes on January 29, 2001 based on notes I made at the meeting and my memory.  I updated the notes on January 30, 2001 to correct grammar and spelling errors and to put them into HTML form for posting on the world wide web.

On January 22, 2001 a "special" meeting of the board was called to discuss and vote upon several matters:

The official "preliminary" minutes of this meeting may be found at the following URL:

Because the board members are all over the world finding a time that works is a truly creative exercise - and it turns out that the creative solution means that I'm on the phone with the board at 5am California time.  Ooof - I am not a morning person.

But despite the hour, we did a lot that morning.

First all, we hired a new CEO, Stuart Lynn.  This is a personnel matter so I really can't go into details except to say that I voted to hire him and I am looking forward to his start date.  When I voted for him I only had various papers describing his credentials.  Since then his name has been made public and I have received considerable positive feedback that this is a good choice for ICANN.

Second, we appointed various board members to the various committees - I'm on the conflicts committee.  Now, I might have picked a rather different set of assignments, but this is one of those things that I felt best to simply accept.  Rather than focusing on the committee assignments I think it might be useful to reevaluate the committee definitions to better define when a matter can be handled by a committee and when it needs to be taken up by the full board.

Third, and this was the big issue for the morning, we took up the matter of the At-Large study.

Before the meeting I had established several criteria to guide my comments and to determine how I  would cast my vote:

During the discussion the issue of who would be on the committee came up.  I made it clear that I believe that it is important that the committee selection endeavor to have at least one person from the Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) of the 1998 time frame.

I was surprised to discover that "staff" was opposed to having anyone on the committee who had participated in the election process - the reason given was that such people would be to predisposed towards having an at-large and elections.  To my mind this was, to put it mildly, a rather odd point of view and represented a bias against the at-large.  Fortunately the board overruled "staff" and instructed "staff" that no such impediment to committee membership would be imposed.

Given that ICANN has asked the supporting organizations for their suggestions for who should be on the committee, I raised the question about when ICANN would would ask the same question of those most directly concerned - the at-large membership itself.  Over objections of "staff" the board felt it proper that an e-mail be sent to the entire at-large membership informing them of the at-large study, asking for their suggestions as to who should be committee members, and finally asking for their participation in the study.

I am somewhat concerned that these decisions of the Board, because they were not formal resolutions, may be lost, overlooked, or ignored in practice.

Because several of my criteria would not be met, I ended up voting against the resolution.  However, the resolution passed over my objection.

As for the subsequent resolution to bring in Carl Bildt, Charles Costello, and Pindar Wong - I took the position that even if I was opposed to the At-Large study itself, that study was going to occur despite my opposition.  So I felt that despite my reservations it was important to do what I could to make sure that the study was as good as it could be.  Consequently I originated this motion. And I voted for it.  This motion passed.

Again, in the interests of making the study as good as it could be, I seconded (and voted for) the motion to get the committee running and provide working funds.  This motion also passed.

Two reports from the reconsideration committee had been issued and there was a suggestion that the board take them up.  I felt that the matters should be deferred until the next board meeting for the following reasons:

The matters were deferred for these reasons.

Return to Diary Index

Return to main page.

2000 Karl Auerbach, All Rights Reserved.
Updated: Thursday, April 05, 2001 03:25:17 PM