ICANN Names New CEO, Will Pay Him $800,000 To Run the Internet 141
darthcamaro writes "ICANN has officially hired a new CEO to replace the Rob Beckstom. ICANN industry unknown Fadi Chehade is taking the top job — but there is a catch. He can't start for another 90 days, even though ICANN has been looking for a new CEO for months. Even better is Chehade's salary. ICANN will pay him $800,000 a year. Is the CEO of ICANN one of the highest paying jobs in the Internet governance landscape?"
Only fair (Score:5, Insightful)
They got all those millions selling useless TLD's, they have to spend it somewhere.
Low (Score:4, Insightful)
Average pay for a S&P 500 CEO was 10.7 million in 2007.
This guy has all those tubes to worry about.
Re:CEO Pay (Score:5, Insightful)
You should have used sarcasm tags.
The thing I've seen over the years is that the good CEOs make a big difference for their companies. With the effects of their decisions being as important as they are they can swing billions of dollars one way or another.
The bad ones can ruin a company, or at least drive it into the gutter.
The problem is that both the good and bad get extremely high pay, and only the good ones are worth it.
The way CEO incentives work is all wrong.
Then the way boards and CEOs interact is often broken too.
Re:CEO Pay (Score:4, Insightful)
The "hire a great CEO" problem is very similar to the "hire a great programmer" problem.
The real deal in both roles commands a huge salary, and is totally worth it. The trouble is, if your company doesn't already have one, it has no expertise to judge if the person they want to hire is worth the money.
The second-rate software company that hires a $500/hour consultant is no different from the big firm that hires a $5000/hour CEO. They have little ability to judge skills, and so tend to get suckered by a smooth, well-groomed candidate.
The firms with the expertise in place (e.g. Google for technical hires, Goldman Sachs for management hires) do not make this mistake, and shell out big bucks for the people who are actually worth it.
Re:Hey, I'll do it for half that. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you know how to run it? Seriously, everyone here has an opinion but do you have the expertise to run it? In a way that would make everyone happy and that would be net neutral and that would satisfy politics? In the real world? In a way that would allow Nepal to bitch and China to still express an opinion and have both the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Premier ready to come visit you at your house for drinks and a round of golf with you and Bill Murray?
Bitch about $800k all you want, but at $400k I think we get a $400k run internet. Pay for performance is a world-wide metric. Do I want someone to do it for free? No, because that is what I will get in return. Open source it? Ok, which nation gets to run THAT? Anarchy? No thanks.
The internet is not utopia. It is actually, however, the one resource no world power controls. RIAA and MPAA and a lot of other corporate powers would like to control it, a lot of nations would like to control it, but for $800k I am happy to let someone run one part of it who (a) Knows what he is doing and (b) makes enough doing so that bribery is not a major source of income.
Re:CEO Pay (Score:4, Insightful)
> I'm curious: how much do you think that someone who runs the internet should be paid?
How much is enough?
Keep in mind: Greed has no limit.
Re:CEO Pay (Score:5, Insightful)
2.718 times the average industrial wage.
I believe that's somewhere in the region of $135,000, but I don't have exact figures for the median US wage. The multiplier is obvious.
Yes. Moreover, I think that such salaries should not be permitted in publicly listed, limited liability companies.
A screaming money casting its dung around the office probably has the skillset to run run them as well, since running them into the ground appears to be the only thing modern CEOs actually do in return for their compensation. That and engage in crime, but I digress.
Then doubtless you will be comfortable with the corresponding increase in your tax bill required to pay for it and the multitude of linked salaries. Moreover, you will of course be perfectly contented in seeing your own wages decrease in value of in real terms to support the increasingly bloated and unearned salaries of the class you so admire. Enjoy your banana republic.
higher income are harmful to economy (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people here seems to agree that 800 kUSD is a reasonable income. The problem is that excessivve income are hamrful to real economy. The sums required to pay such a salary are taken from real economy and are too big to return to it as good consumption or real economy investements. A lot of this money will end up in financial economy, feeding bubbles and preparing the next burst.
Moreover, who can claim his work cannot be done by someone else for less than 800 kUSD? Such an income is not necessary to get a tallented leader
Re:CEO Pay (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing. No one should run the internet. But if I HAD to pick someone? It wouldn't be someone making 800k; it would be RMS or someone from the EFF, who, I suspect, would happily do so for free or nearly so.
Re:Hey, I'll do it for half that. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bitch about $800k all you want, but at $400k I think we get a $400k run internet.
Indeed, back when the internet was free of commercial interests ICANN was not needed, as people could (and would) get stuff done because they wanted to, for no charge.
Re:CEO Pay (Score:5, Insightful)
You had my interest until you suggested RMS running the internet. 800k is a bargain if that is the compitition.
Re:Hey, I'll do it for half that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Postel did it for $15K/yr and the names, numbers and infrastructure grew more under Jon that at any other time. 250 tlds in a few years.
ICANN: half a billion dollars and we got .coop
The thing is, Jon knew how to configure a nameserver. How many of the six figure guys in ICANN do you suppose can do this?