[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [icann-eu] Draft comments on Study Committee
- To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
- Subject: Re: [icann-eu] Draft comments on Study Committee
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:15:25 +0100 (CET)
- cc: icann-europe@fitug.de, members-meeting list <members-meeting@egroups.com>
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-Reply-To: <20001121135535.A28311@sobolev.does-not-exist.org>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, at 13:55 [=GMT+0100], Thomas Roessler wrote:
> In order to get the discussion running, I've prepared a very first
> draft of a comment on the Study Committee Recommendation from the
> ICANN staff. You can find it under
> <ftp://fitug.fitug.de/pub/icann-drafts/draft-tlr-study-00.txt>.
Ad 1: May I suggest adding a few words that indicate that what is
suggested is "keeping the original role of At Large", as promised by
ICANN (which was part of the 'deal' in its establishment)?
Ad 2.1: The call for including an At Large director here does not have
to be merely negative, 'to avoid charges of bias'. Obviously an At
Large director brings a special experience to the Committe, having
participated in the election process, which is the object of study.
Ad 2.2: This sounds very complicated. And for all we know the At Large
director chosen for the Committee (if that happens) may be one who is
not in favour of at large at all, but crossed over straight from the
business constituency. Why not something more general: For the study
to be accepted by the internet users, a serious effort should be made
to avoid the impression that by selecting the people in charge of the
study the outcome has already been predetermined. And then some
examples, what would cause such an impression.
Ad 2.4: I would like to see it clearly stated, that even with a good
remote participation in place, no meeting can ever replace online
consensus building over a longer period, lists, voting, whatever. Many
people are not able to participate remotely at the time a meeting
takes place. Reasons include: time differences (some people have a job
that starts at a certain time...), online costs (US people are unaware
how huge these may be e.g. in some European countries). Also the
connection with MDR was not optimal, at my end at least. It might have
been worse elsewehere in the world. Before we know we need a study
committee to determine why so many people who preregistered for online
participation never showed up...
Thanks, Thomas, for all the time you put into this!
--
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)