[governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs

Tue Feb 16 16:22:37 EST 2010

Hello Avri Doria,

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

>
> On 14 Feb 2010, at 10:47, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
> > In the case of the CEO's compensation for the year, I wouldn't worry
> about a $ 250,000 difference. It isn't much.
>
> It could help to fund at least one application by some worthy applicant
> from a developing region maybe even seed money for a Foundation to help
> applicants from developing regions.  Lots of things could be done with that
> 250K that you think is not so much.  Maybe he will donate it to some good
> cause since it is not so much.
>

I don't see anything disagreeable in anything that you say, but I also
happen to be right in my own way.

I agree that $ 250, let alone $250,000 is a valuable sum that can do
something meaningful, but at the same time, it is also true that it is not
an atrocious sum of money as a difference in a CEO's salary that merits an
endless debate.

>
> > And not a significant difference to merit an embarrassing discussion in a
> public list or in an open forum.
>
> To whom is this discussion embarrassing?  You, me?  I am not embarrassed.
>  If we don't talk about here, then where?  If one sees excess, it needs to
> be pointed out.
>
> >  There are good natured people with the required qualification who would
> opt to work at low compensation levels, but it is not always necessary for
> all non-profit corporations to take advantage of the goodness of such
> people.
>
> I disagree.  We should find the people who are dedicated, know the field
> and are willing to take a reasonable wage.  I accept the need to pay them a
> livable wage for LA, Brussels or even Palo Alto, and I accept that they have
> higher then normal expenses while doing their job - I even accept that they
> travel business class since that is the only way to travel and work at the
> same time.  I do not accept that they need to be paid according to the
> standards of profit making industry or need TV studios in the Palo Alto
> office.
>

$750,000 as a salary of a CEO of a large corporation isn't anywhere near the
untold scales of profit corporations. In India CEOs of some of the private
business groups have taken home / still take home compensation in the realm
of $5 to $10 million a year or more, and one of India's famous business
group heads had a salary of a little over INR 1 billion $20 million eight or
nine years ago. In developed countries, if you take the Stock options and
other benefits into account, there are 10 CEOs in the compensation bracket
of $35 - $115 million per year.

So this amount of $750,000 a year is not according to the standards of
profit making industry.

I don't understand the reason behind the reference to TV studios in Palo
Alto office. If you have said this because Rod Beckstrom has or plans to
have a "TV studio" in his Palo Alto office, if one is established already, I
would argue that it is a required inhouse facility given the scope of use
for video conferencing / video recording equipment in his work as CEO of
ICANN which has a culture of video conferencing and video interviews. What
can a 'TV studio' possibly cost today? $ 10 - $ 25, 000 ? A profit
corporation wouldn't mind hiring a holywood cinematographer in addition.

>
> > Our energies could instead be directed towards finding ways of enhancing
> ICANN's revenues in areas where it is due, where it does not become a burden
> for the user. That would be several times more rewarding than saving a few
> thousand dollars on Executive Compensation.
>
> It is a symbolic issue.  One of the problem i see in IANN is that it
> persists in seeing itself through the lens of a profit making corporation.
>  This excuses a whole lot of problems.
>

It would be wrong if ICANN indiscriminately sees itself through the lens of
a profit corporation. At the same time it is not necessary to have a harshly
conservative outlook about ICANN because it happens not to be a poor
corporation in a state of total financial misfortune. Also, I am not
defending specific salary decisions of specific individuals as much as I am
confronting a mindset that those who work for a non-profit corporation
should sacrifice what is due to them.

>
> And do not think that there is any will in ICANN for unburdening the poor
> user (the ICANN tax on domain names is not after all, the real burden on the
> user).
>

(Even if it is a deviation from the main issue discussed in this message, I
wish to say that an average user parts with $10 dollars for a domain name
every year of which at least fifty cents could go to ICANN. It doesn't make
sense to find the user parting with $10 for a domain name of which almost
none goes to the corporation from where the name originates and instead
almost all of it goes to the channel.)

> E.g. there have been several calls over the years from setting up a
> foundation to help applicants who have less then LA style 'bundles of bucks'
> in order to make applications - and we have seen no movement in this area.
>  Finding ways to help ICANN bring in more money will only result in higher
> wages for a greater number of employees (don't get me wrong jobs funding is
> a good thing - i am happy lots of people have work in ICANN).
>

I don't want to make an assumption that any increase in revenues would go
towards even higher salaries for a greater number of people. That could be
controlled. ( As of now, I am not blanket-endorsing the salary scales of all
employees of ICANN. As I said earlier, this is more about the mindset
against what I consider to be fair salaries for some positions)

>  If a foundation were set up to channel the some of the bounty,
>

I am entirely with you on this thought.

> including the windfall we will see from gTLD auctions, into a foundation
> geared toward development and especially developing a DNS industry in
> developing regions, instead of ploughing the money into excessive salaries,
> then ICANN would have a better reputation in the world and more importantly
> would be doing the right thing.
>
> I am not embarrassed to say such things.
>

I felt that this discussion might embarrass the people who have chosen to
work for ICANN. In most other corporations, even in non-profit corporations,
the compensation for employees is not subjected to a loud public debate.

I would have been embarrassed if I were an ICANN executive whose salary is
discussed by the community in an open list and in public meetings and goes
to press. My salary is meant to be a private arrangement between me and my
employer (don't argue that the community is the employer, for this purpose I
would argue that the Board is the employer ) and I would consider it a
violation of my right to privacy.

>
> a.
>

Thank you.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100217/1f486549/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t