Re: [icann-eu] Document on study working group?

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2000-11-15 17:55:01 -0800, jeanette hofmann wrote:

>>> Assuming that the ICANN board adopts the staff
>>> recommendations on the At Large Study Committee,

> And why shouldn't it?

I don't say they shouldn't.  They just didn't adopt it so far,
because there was no board meeting.  :-)

> All in all, the staff hasn't done anything but asks all those
> who'd like to see the ALM survive to contribute quite a lot. So,
> what is there to comment on? That we'd like to be assured that
> the staff will take the time to read at least the executive
> summary of the reports?

The staff suggests a Study Committee, and gives a job description
for that committee.  That's where I believe there may be some
aspects we should comment on.

- The staff says:

	We suggest that one member of the Study Committee should be
	a sitting ICANN Board member, bringing to the Study
	Committee the history and experience of ICANN's efforts to
	deal with this issue.

  Now, this goal excludes all newly-elected directors from the study
  committee, and basically limits those eligible to those who have
  long been on the board, and will continue to be on the board.
  
  Much more likely, we'll see one of the "eternal four" on that
  committee, which would draw considerable heat from the public, and
  create a - possibly wrong! - percpetion of unfair bias in that
  Committee.

  My personal suggestion (I already made that via remote comment to
  the open forum) on this one is that two members of the board
  should be sent to the Study Committee, one of them being an
  _elected_ At Large Director.

- ICANN staff solicits suggestions "for a Chair (or co-Chairs) whose
  reputation(s) will help to generate confidence in the objectivity
  of the effort." Depending on what board member is on the Study
  committee, and who's the others, there may be a - possibly wrong!
  - perception that the chair is a lightweight in comparison to that
  individual, in turn damaging the committee's reputation.
  
  One way around this problem would be to acknowledge the board
  members as the heavyweights, and to let them co-chair the
  committee with equal rights, so their respective non-objectivities
  can cancel out each other.

  (That was also part of my remote comment, although in a much
  shorter form.)

- The staff report suggests at various places that the Committee
  should look for consensus and report on it.  However, there are no
  procedures for that Committee itself.  Thinking about certain
  kinds of consensus in DNSO WGs, it may be healthy to fix such
  procedures in advance, and require a strong quorum in the
  Committee.
  
  Note, however, that this point should be consdidered with great
  care - no results from the Committee may be even worse than
  non-optimal results.  We should think about this in more depth.

> In my view, the most important question right now is how we
> achieve at least a minimum of coordination among all those who
> might set out to make a post election study. I wouldn't rely on
> any support by ICANN's coordinating committee. We do not even
> know whether it will be ever functional. Nonetheless, the
> composition of this committee is another point that deserves
> attention. Those who serve on this committee can't participate in
> the study and vice versa. Who we propose for the committee
> therefore needs careful consideration.

I entirely agree with that.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>