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

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:32:59 +0100, you wrote:

>Thanks.  I have put that into the second version of the draft, 

So here are my comments.

First of all, I'm wondering whether we should not try to suggest a basic
principle: being this a study on the At Large Membership, its results and
suggestions should be formally judged by the membership itself. So, ICANN
should not only open a public board for discussion and review of the Study
documents, but the final document emerging from the Study should be subject
to a general consultory vote among the Membership.

This is also a highly strategic issue for us: if we can make this happen, we
will be sure that a study that clearly tries to eliminate or reduce the
importance of the Membership can receive a clear and unmistakeable NO from
the Membership. Then, if they want, the ICANN Board members can approve
it... but it will be absolutely clear that they don't have any type of
consensus for it in the Membership.

On the other hand, if the Membership's views can just be exposed through a
general and highly crowded board or set of lists, it will be easy for anyone
to say that "there is no prevalent and clear opinion among the Membership"
and so to discard our opinions as irrelevant or confused.

So I'd add at the end of 3.3 the following sentence:
"The final results and suggestions of the Study should be subject to a
general consultory vote among the Membership, to measure the degree of
consensus they have in the At Large Internet community."

Another issue is whether we want to give up so easily on having the four new
Board members elected in 2001. By accepting the timing proposed by the
Board, we de facto renounce to have any more At Large Directors elected
before Autumn 2002 - that is, two years from now. This, in Internet time, is
a huge era. So I'd consider the option of using all the weight we can get to
push towards having four more At Large Directors elected and seated by
Annual Meeting 2001. The basic idea is that this is what was originally
scheduled, and any action taken by the Board in the last months should not
try to change it before the Study is concluded. I'm wondering whether we can
try to establish some form of "cooperation" with the European ccTLDs, so
that the full implementation of the At Large Membership as originally
planned can become a necessary condition for them to accept to pay their
ICANN fees. This could be a winning key.

So I'd add a paragraph at the end of 2.:
"Given the length of the proposed process, the timing of the Study should
not interfere with the full implementation of the At Large Directors
selection plan, which is a pre-condition for ICANN's balance, credibility
and legitimacy. In parallel with the Study, a process should be started so
to have four more At Large Directors elected and seated by the Annual
Meeting of the Corporation in 2001. Since no reason can be found at this
time to assume that the Study will suggest a reduction of the original
number of the At Large Directors, such reduction should not be anticipated
unilaterally by the current Board."

What do you think about this?
-- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <vb@vitaminic.net>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology