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

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

On 2000-11-30 11:15:25 -0800, Barbara Simons wrote:

> 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?

Certainly not, and - as the text is supposed to say - they should
indeed be elected.  However, at least some of us seem to be able to
imagine constructions in which part of the At Large directors is
elected directly, and part is elected indirectly.  When I'm looking
at what has been proposed at MdR (to the best of my knowledge - I
have to rely on the things others tell me since I wasn't there),
there seems to be a lare consensus that some kind of at large
advisory council should be created.  Such a council could, for
instance, be used to elect part of the directors.

Note, BTW, that this part of the letter is far less a demand, but
rather a description: We describe a lower bound of what may be
acceptable now and in the near future, and conclude from this bound
that any answers to questions (a) and (b) which go below this lower
bound can't be transformed into a consensus any time soon, and
certainly not during the time the study will take up.  Thus, we
conclude, the study's scope can and must be limited from the
beginning.  (I admit that this argument may look like a
mathematician's - it is.)

In a way, this argument is just the opposite of what the CDT letter
from November 9 says, and what you have been suggesting here:
Namely, to subject the entire board structure to review, _including_
the SO directors.  Actually, I find that approach far more
dangerous: It seems to accept the fact that there may be consensus
on something which looks vastly different from the At Large as we
know it, and from the SO structure as we know it.  Now, such a
vastly different structure would of course mean a vastly different
balance on the board, and I'm afraid that this balance wouldn't be
favorable for the at large directors and for the individual net
users.  I find it safer to argue in favor of the current structure
which - with all its shortcomings - may at some point converge
towards something which is more balanced, and may even work.  (Note
that part of the current disequilibrium comes from the fact that we
still have the eternal four on board, and not from the structure.)

> 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.

Input on clearer language is, of course, welcome.  Please keep in
mind that most of the text wasn't written by native English
speakers.

> 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.

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