Re: [ICANN-EU] ICANNER Squatters

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Dear Charles,

> I would be interested in knowing your evalutation of the ICANN annoucement
> of 4 interim Members of the initial BoD  to stay 4 years instead of a few
> months and to represent you.

the news is only the announcement *who* will stay on,
not *that* there would be people staying on. It was 
part of the compromise that led to the direct election 
of the five new At Large Directors.
http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-10mar00.htm#00.18

In Yokohama, ICANN staff had prepared a resolution
that the terms of the 4 interim Directors should be
extended only by *one* year. This plan was heavily
criticized at the Public Forum in Yokohama, because 
cutting down the At Large representation on the Board to 
only 5 Directors after 2001 was seen as dangerous 
precedent. A new resolution was prepared so that 
9 At Large Directors (5 elected, 4 interim) remain part
of the Board.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/scribe-icann-071500.html#alm
http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#00.52

Now, Michael Froomkin calls on the interim Directors to
resign. As usually, ICANN is criticized either way... ;)

My personal view is that it was more important to have direct 
elections than to have 9 directors chosen by indirect elections
in 2000, that's why I think the Cairo Compromise was a good 
deal. The important point is that those interim Directors
are replaced by *four* At Large directors *directly* 
elected by the At Large members as soon as possible (that there 
obviously have to be numerous improvements to the election 
process goes almost without saying).

Best regards,
/// Alexander

_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de