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

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

On 2000-11-23 16:24:19 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> 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.

Could you please elaborate a bit on the nature of such a consultroy
vote?  Also, since this study is intended to be a consensus-building
process, wouldn't that imply that there should be a formal approval
from the Supproting Organizations, too?

> 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.

Being confused doesn't mean being irrelevant - just have a look at
the webcasts from the board meeting in MdR. ;-) More seriously, the
requirement put forth in the Staff Paper is that the study committee
should produce a consensus.  A situation you describe can't
seriously be termed "consensus", and I'm quite certain that ICANN
staff doesn't want to get the kind of publicity a one-sided
consensus on this issue would produce.

> 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. 

When I wrote about the timing, that was only about the short-term
plans for the study itself, not about the implementation period.
Most likely, I should add something on that.  Thanks for noting.

> 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?

Frankly, I don't think that this is even remotely realistic.  Sorry
to say that, but the study's purpose is, as far as I see it,
precisely to prepare the next At Large elections - if they are going
to happen.

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