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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, at 17:55 [=GMT-0800], jeanette hofmann wrote:

[Thomas Roessler wrote:]
> > > Assuming that the ICANN board adopts the staff
> > recommendations on
> > > the At Large Study Committee,
> 
> And why shouldn't it? 
> The staff report doesn't say anything except for the
> fact that the staff 
> 1. hasn't done anything regarding further
> specifications of the study's scope
> 2. that they don't intend to provide any funding
> 3. that they expect the people who may conduct a study
> to stay nonetheless within the originally proposed
> time frame. 
> 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? 

I would say the above constitutes some pretty comment. We might even
draw the conclusion that the staff leaves open the possibility that
the study may be 'bought'. (See also my last remark.)

> That we'd like to be
> assured that the staff will take the time to read at
> least the executive summary of the reports?

If that time is funded externally, they will. 

> > > I'd like to suggest that we try to work out a
> > consensus document on
> > > these staff recommendations, and post it to ICANN
> > during the
> > > comments period.  I'm volunteering to edit such a
> > document, based on
> > > my own ideas and input from this list.  Once
> > finished, there would
> > > be a call for support on this list, in the hope
> > that as many list
> > > members as possible support the result.
> > > 
> > > Are there any objections against this procedure?  
> 
> 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. 

What force would any study have, if it wasn't endorsed or incorporated
into their report by this Committee? No more than just a paper,
however brilliant, from a Miami professor, I would guess.

> 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.

And no early name dropping?

May I add that having read the staff paper more carefully, I cannot
shed the feeling that it is overall somewhat pathetic?

And, finally, that this one line worries me:

"For purposes of funding and administration, the Executive Director
should report to the ICANN CEO; in all other respects, the Executive
Director should report to the Study Committee Chair."

Why would the CEO of ICANN stear things moneywise, when ICANN does not
pay this? And even more: why the CEO and not the special Committee??

-- 
Marc Schneiders

"In re tam iusta nulla est deliberatio."
(Acta SS. Mart. Scillitanorum [AD 202])