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

[Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>]

Thomas,

Thank you for taking on this task.

I have a few comments.

1.  You begin by thanking the staff for their "effort to
suggest an open, fair, and inclusive process for the
evaluation of the ICANN At Large process".

I understand why you begin on a positive note, and I
agree that a positive beginning is a good strategy.
However, I have a real problem with the wording,
because it states that we accept the validity of doing
a study of ONLY the at large "process", whatever
that is.  In my view, the most broken part of ICANN
is the DNSO.  Yes, no one is talking about doing a
clean sheet study of the DNSO that includes the option
of eliminating the DNSO seats on the Board.

I believe we need to state clearly in the letter that we
do not accept the premise that only the At Large should
be studied.  I recommend watering down that sentence
considerably so that it sounds nice but has no content.

2.  The last sentence of your first point says, "A constellation
which is in favor of any single stakeholder group or set of
stakeholder groups must be avoided at all cost."

I think this is also a dangerous sentence, since it could be
used to demonstrate that support reducing the number of
at large seats on the Board - so that the at large no longer
dominates.  Given that there are forces that would like to
take the remaining four, or even all nine, at large seats away
from the at large community, we need to be very clear that
we in no way endorse such a move.

3.  In point 2 you say, " The recent At Large    elections
have produced the strong public expectation that the At
Large directors will be elected, and that at least five of them
continue to be elected directly."

No, no, no!!!  Please don't ever say this.  Once such a
sentence comes out of people who could be viewed as
representatives of the at large community, we will have
NO MORE than five elected at large directors - and most
likely no more than five at large directors, elected or not.

4 .You then go on to say:

   We urge the board to abandon the clean-sheet approach, and consider
   the current board structure fixed.  The study should then concentrate
   on the question how the selection of At Large directors can be
   implemented, and what lessons can be learned from the recent At Large
   elections.  The study should, in particular, analyze the member
   registration process which has been much criticized in the past.

This is your key sentence.  It should start the letter.  The thought
should be repeated throughout the letter, and nothing should be
said that in any way limits or dilutes this thought.

5.  You begin point 3.1 with, "We agree with the ICANN staff that..."
I don't agree with the Board about anything relating to the study,
aside from the obvious point that we should improve the methodology
used for registration, nominations, and voting.  I believe we need to
be very clear that we consider any study that considers elimination
of some or all of the at large seats to be unacceptable.

So, we can agree with a study that examines how to improve the
election of Board members.  I expect that anyone who was a
candidate or a voter or attempted to be either feels that there
are many ways in which the system could and should be improved.
When we are being positive, we should limit our positive comments
to what we consider the appropriate study, not to the potential
elimination of our representation.

6.  I don't know how best to phrase our recommendations for
memers of the Study Committee.  I believe we want to word our
suggestion so that people who are likely to be sympathetic to
maintaining the at large membership are included on the committee.
Perhaps we should come out and say that.  In other words, we
might consider saying that there has been a lot of concern expressed
within the at large community that the purpose of the study is to
justify the elimination of some or all of the at large elected seats.
Therefore, we feel that it is incumbent on the Board to appoint
two representatives of the at large membership who are committed
to supporting and developing the at large membership.

While it's unlikely that the Board will acceed to what we are asking
(or they might by selecting one of the at large candidates or Board
members who are really not supportive of the at large), I believe
we should still consider the request.

This is a negotiation. When you negotiate, you don't start with the
least you expect to get, but rather with what you really would like
to get.  Then you see what you are willing to settle for.

And, if the study turns out to be a disaster, we want a paper trail
for when we go to the press.

7.  You point 3.2 about the selection of the chair gives some
vague recommendations.  Why don't we compile a list of names
of people who we would find acceptable?  Can we do this?
I think it's worth a try.  I would start by nominating Jeanette.
I think she would do an excellent job.

8.  How about also stating that any recommendation to reduce
in any way the at large membership on the Board will need to
be put to the at large membership for ratification.

9.  Finally, I believe we should add that either the study should
be limited to examining how to improve elections for at large
members, or it should include all of ICANN, esp the DNSO,
in the examination - and everything should be on the table.
I list this as my final point, but I believe that it should immediately
follow the paragraph I mention in point 4 above.

Sorry for the lateness in my response.  I must also apologize for
the fact that I am flying from California to Washington, DC today,
which means that I shall be out of email access for most of the day.

Again, I really appreciate your writing this draft.  It was important
to get this process going.

Regards,
Barbara

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
> on that paper.  If there is no further input, I'll  issue a call for
> signatures in about 24 hours.
>
> The latest version of the draft can be found at
> <ftp://fitug.fitug.de/pub/icann-drafts/draft-tlr-study-02.txt>.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> eGroups eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/_/_/975586759/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> members-meeting-unsubscribe@egroups.com