Re: [icann-eu] LAST CALL: Study Committee Comments.

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

On 2000-11-30 15:16:56 +0100, patrick.mayer@gmx.de wrote:

> - 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) 

May I quote?

   suggests that the single board member which is suggested to serve
   on the Study Committee may be one of the members of ICANN's
   initial board who still serve (termed "board squatters" by some).
   Such a decision of the board would lead to the public perception
   that the Study Committee is biased.

Recalling that propaganda term may be helpful to remind ICANN staff
and board of the kind of public echo they can expect - "board
squatters to decide board's fate" would just be one possible headline.

>   and one At-Large-Director on the committee.

Actually, that former board member idea was also mentioned by
Wolfgang Kleinwächter before.  Maybe someone of you has a nice idea
how to best put this into the text?

> - 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...)

The staff paper itself has quite a few reasonable suggestions on
this topic already.  I don't believe there's much need for
criticism.

> - 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)

In particular, more studies would give parties who wouldn't be
selected by the ICANN board or committee an opportunity to get their
arguments into the process.

> 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.

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