[icann-eu] Second draft for comments on Study Committee

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

On 2000-11-21 22:15:16 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>    Such a mechanism should also make sure that the weight given to
>    attendance at eventual public meetings is appropriate. In
>    particular, those who can't participate physically in such meetings
>    for whatever reasons should not be disenfranchised during the
>    consensus-building process. Neither can remote participation
>    during the physical meeting be a full remedy, as the Internet 
>    community is dispersed over a range of different time zones and 
>    there are both financial and technical restraints that keep many
>    users from participating remotely via a webcast of long duration.
>    Any results generated at such physical meetings should therefore 
>    be considered preliminary, and be subject to online discussion and 
>    comment over a reasonable period of time.

Thanks.  I have put that into the second version of the draft, which
can be found at
<ftp://fitug.fitug.de/pub/icann-drafts/draft-tlr-study-01.txt>.  You
are listed as a co-author now.

Additional changes include, in particular, the addition of some
remarks on the clean-sheet approach.  I bascially say that this
approach is pointless since there would never be a consensus on the
removal of the At Large directors, or on the reduction of their
number.  Thus, discussing these questions would be a waste of
ressources, and should be avoided.

I also note that this situation is made "worse" (not really ;-) by
the short time frame - it's virtually unthinkable that, within three
months, a consensus on the removal of the At Large directors could
evolve.

> There is another area of the staff proposal which requires 
> comment: Who pays the bill? From the staff proposal:

Good question.  We shouldn't forget that physical meetings are going
to consume money, too.

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