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

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Thinking a bit more about it, how about inserting the following at
> an appropriate place of the comments?
>
> 	As an alternative to appointing two sitting board members,
> 	the board may wish to consider the possibility that a
> 	former member of the board could serve as the liaison and
> 	provide the necessary experience with the ICANN process.
> 	Such a former member of the board could, ideally, be
> 	complemented by some candidate who was not elected into the
> 	board during the at large elections, but got a respectable
> 	number of votes.

That sounds convincing to me, although this should clearly 
only be an alternative (like it says in your proposal). Having
(two) sitting board members on the Study Committee would
obviously facilitate Committee--Board communication even more.

Patrick Mayer wrote:
>> - 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)

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 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.

According to the proposal, the Study Committee can undertake 
its own studies, it can commission studies (e.g. a main study 
and smaller studies regarding specific aspects or regions) and 
receive additional studies. I think this is better than leaving 
the (only) study completely to a certain group. We'll have to
leave it to the quality of the studies whether this gives an 
impression of consensus!

Although I would have liked an additional comment on timing,
it seems there has not been enough discussion about this,
and it's equally important to have the document ready for
signing in good time.
So I'm happy with the draft and the above amendment!

Best regards,
/// Alexander