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

[Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>]

Dear Alexander,

If only five of the at large seats are to be elected directly,
how will the other four be chosen?  We currently have
four Board Squatters occupying those seats.  Is that
acceptable?  If we are not going to call for direct election
for all nine seats, I believe we need to be clear about
what we consider acceptable.  Otherwise, we are likely
to be stuck with the choice of the majority of the ICANN
Board.

As far as the other points go, I think it's crucial that the
letter be short and to the point.  Our primary arguments
should be presented at the very beginning in clear and
unambiguous language, and they should be repeated again
at the closing of the letter.

This letter is being written not only for the ICANN
Board but also for the general public and the press.
We need to assume that people are not going to read it
carefully, and may even not read all of it if it's two or three
pages long.

Regards,
Barbara

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear Barbara,
>
> some comments on some points of your proposals:
>
> Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'm not sure whether this is a question of wording or not:
>
>  The recent At Large elections have produced the strong public
>  expectation that *ALL NINE* At Large directors will be elected,
>  and that at least five of them continue to be elected directly.
> This is what is meant, maybe this would make it more clear.
>
> > 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.
>
> The point 3.1 is about the size and efficiency, not about
> the goals. In general, you want to emphasize that cutting
> down the At Large representation is unacceptable to us --
> a point on which I think there is consensus among all the
> list participants. Maybe this point (which is included in
> section 2, albeit in a more restrained way) should be in
> the introduction as well, so that it cannot be missed.
>
> Best,
> /// Alexander