Re: [ICANN-EU] Revised version of "Things to Ask for at MDR"

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Dear all,
> <http://www.does-not-exist.org/roessler/requirements.pdf>

| Checks and Balances when Revising the Bylaws and
| Articles of Incorporation
| The board should no longer be permitted to change the bylaws and
| articles of incorporation by simple or qualified resolution. Require consent
| from (or at least give veto right to) SOs and At Large Members / At
| Large Council.

Both the Articles and the Bylaws can only be amended by a 2/3-vote 
of Directors. I don't think it is wise to raise these barriers:
Please keep in mind that in the future, there may also be changes 
of the Bylaws that you would support and that anti-At Large directors
(currently, Mr Kraaijenbrink springs to mind) may veto. The current
Bylaws are not holy, they are only entrenched slightly firmer than 
majority board decisions. Changes will certainly be necessary, and
it isn't the changes in itself that are disturbing.
The real problem is not the 2/3-barrier but the At Large representation.
So I would instead emphasize postponing controversial decisions until 
new directors have been seated. Additionally, I would suggest that
Bylaw revisions should be discussed much more before these decisions
are taken. Maybe ICANN staff should be required to prepare 
alternative Bylaw revisions (each with a rationale) in controversial 
cases.

| Filling At Large Director Vacancies
| ...
Agree.

| Examine member registration/activation process.
| Why did 50% of the registered members not activate their membership?
That should read: 50% of the membership applicants. If you don't
activate your membership, you're not a registered member. 
ICANN and election.com should also be required to publish the
number of support questions/problems regarding the At Large
process, and Jody Baram, the At Large program manager, should be 
invited to explain the technical procedures for the study.

| Solicit input from the general Internet community on possible
| candidates to serve as ICANN's CEO and President.
?! So people applying for employment would have to face a
Call for Comments and a web discussion board on their personal 
abilities and/or character? This seems to be a bit exaggerated!
The Executive Search Committee should obviously find a suitable
candidate and, in doing this, will have to solicit input from
various sources. But anything more than this would be harassing
in my view. 

| Postpone controversial decisions until new directors have
| been seated.
The main problem is whether the decision about new TLDs should 
be postponed or not. If so, this may be seen as the ultimate
ICANN failure, seeing that implementing new TLDs was part of
why ICANN was founded two years ago. If not so, the decision
may be seen as illegitimate if the majority of the At Large 
directors-elect disagree with the decisions taken. 
The point is that (if I recall correctly, with the exception of 
Karl Auerbach) I haven't heard much about where the new At Large
directors-elect stand on the 44 applications.
@ Jeanette and Thomas: Does "postpone controversial decisions"
include the decision about new TLDs? 

Best regards,
/// Alexander