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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, at 19:35 [=GMT+0100], Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 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.

I'll try to have a look again tomorrow.

> > 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.

Then obviously I did not read it carefully enough.

> > 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."

That sounds fine with me.

> > 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"?

I support the suggestions made by Alexander for this paragraph.

Regards!

-- 
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)