Page History
...
If the Board does not practice what it preaches about openness, no other part of ICANN will likely practice it either. So I believe the ATRT is correct in that an early focus must be on the Board.
...
I have periodically looked at the salaries of ICANN’s senior managers, and did so in preparing my answer to this question. I am not an expert on what salary levels are common in either Southern California or Brussels, so my impressions are not the best measure. Nevertheless, I find some of the salaries rather outlandish, and was surprised that others were as low as they are. If you were to compare salaries to other organizations, you would need to be careful in to compare not only non-profit to non-profit, but more importantly what salary levels people with the skills we need can command elsewhere. There is no point in paying lower salaries if we cannot maintain the quality. However, I am well aware that there are certainly a number of cases where in the past, we have paid VERY high salaries and not received the expected level of quality. THAT we should not stand for.
...
I think that the term “plan” may be to too strong, but I certainly have ideas. I can summarize them with three directives:
...
In the context of ICANN, I think it perhaps refers to the interests of those who are not represented by those with a direct financial stake in ICANN matters. It can also be a reference to the overall state of the Internet as a whole, to the extent that we can put metrics on it - for instance, if there were a major Denial-of-Service problem, that would not be in the public interest.
...
I think my previous answer partially addressed this. ICANN is entrusted with overseeing the Internet Name and Number systems. This is a general resource not just to serve those who can lobby ICANN for what they want but for the rest of the world’s users as well. There is used to be an old expression in the United States that goes:
...
Given the lack of formal definition, and the likely varying perceptions of people, the only solution is to select someone who you believe (or hope) shares a common view with you had and that they are then vigilant when the board is faced with decisions.
I strongly believe that one of the reasons that we needed At-large Large to have voting privileges is to ensure that during the discussion and vote, there is always SOMEONE on the Board who is considering the impact on the user instead of just that on the various other stakeholders or the corporation itself. That is not to say that all other directors ignore these issues, but it is important to make sure that they are always represented.
...
