[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [icann-eu] LAST CALL: Study Committee Comments.
- To: icann-europe@fitug.de
- Subject: Re: [icann-eu] LAST CALL: Study Committee Comments.
- From: patrick.mayer@gmx.de
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:16:56 +0100 (MET)
- Cc: members-meeting@egroups.com, roessler@does-not-exist.org
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- References: <20001130131602.A12228@sobolev.does-not-exist.org>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Since there have been no comments whatsoever on the latest draft of
> the Comments on the Study Committee, this is the LAST CALL for input
That's surely a sign for the good quality of your work. Thank you very
much.
> on that paper. If there is no further input, I'll issue a call for
> signatures in about 24 hours.
Just three last-minute thougts for your consideration:
- With regard to the liaison between the actual board and the
committee: does it make sense to suggest one of the
former board members as chair or as liaison to the board?
They know most of ICANN's history and should still have the
email addresses of their former colleagues. This might go as
a second best solution to your proposal to have one board
squatter (btw, as that is a propagandistic term and does not
really correlate with the history of the continuing
prolongation of board terms IMHO, I suggest to replace that
term by "long term member" for diplomatic reasons) and one
At-Large-Director on the committee.
- The issue of communication between interested parties and the
committee is addressed only in terms of decision making and
of consensus building. While I agree with your comments on
that, I would find some more concrete suggestions
(introduction of mailing lists, Q&A- and/or discussion forums,
newsgroups, electronic ballot and so on) useful. (well, it's
probably to late for reasonable suggestions at this time...)
- I am very much afraid that the concept of having different
studies is a pure "divide et impera" (divide and rule) approach
by the staff. In my opinion, there should at some point be a
decision either by the staff or by the board who should do the
study. (while, on the other hand, more studies give a broader
impression of consensus [or not]... hmmmm)
Again, thanks a lot for your work in our interest. I am deeply sorry I
could not give you input earlier. If there's no chance to modify the comment
right now, dont mind.
Kind regards,
Patrick
--
Rechtsanwalt Dr. Patrick Mayer patrick.mayer@gmx.de
Informationen zum Medienrecht: http://www.artikel5.de