Re: [icann-eu] Draft comments on Study Committee

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

Thanks!

On 2000-11-21 19:15:25 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> 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)?

That sounds like a good idea.  However, I'll have to have another
look at the white paper in order to properly phrase such a section.
If you want to save me that time, a proposition would be highly
welcome.

> 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.

Umhhh...  That's basically what I'm trying to say.  Note that I'm
asking for an optimal transfer of experience with ICANN history and
the At Large process, and conclude from that that an elected (!) At
Large director should be appointed.

> 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.

Mh.  Maybe I should clarify the language.  What I'm trying to say is
this:

- One board member => appoint an independent chair, who MUST have
  the reputation necessary to balance the board member.  (For some
  reason, the name "Kraaijenbrink" is lurking in the back of my mind
  here.)
- Two board members => 
   - EITHER appoint an independent chair
   - OR appoint the two board members to co-chair the Committee.

Additionally, we may wish to add language like this: "Additionally,
it should be noted that some of the elected At Large directors have
a strong backtround in other stakeholder groups, and held offices in
supporting organizations or their constituencies.  We would consider
the selection of such At Large directors for the Study Committeee
inappropriate."

> 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...

Please re-read that section without the last sentence ("It would be
...").  Does it sound clearer then?  Or should we change "online
discussion and comment" to "online discussion and comment over a
reasonable period of time"?

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