[icann-eu] Please Sign.

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

Since, upon my latest messages, nobody replied, I suppose that we
have some kind of agreement on what the comment could look like.

Those who'd like to sign the document before it's submitted to ICANN
should please indicate this via an e-mail message to the
icann-europe mailing list until December 20.

Please note that, if you disagree on individual points of this
documents, you should still consider signing.  You could, in this
case, post a comment of your own at ICANN's public comment forum
which has, so far, been quite unproductive.

For your reference, the document is reproduced below the .signature.

Changes against the last version posted are limited to replacing
November by December.

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







icann-europe                                             Thomas Roessler
draft-tlr-study-04.txt                                        FITUG e.V.

                                                      Alexander Svensson
                                                         icannchannel.de

                                                           December 2000


                            Comments on the
         Staff Recommendation on At Large Study Implementation



Status of This Memo

   The present document is a summary of positions publicly discussed on
   the icann-europe mailing list.  A list of individuals and
   organizations supporting this document can be found at the end of
   this document.


1.  Introduction and Basic Requirements

   We appreciate the publication of the ICANN staff recommendation, and
   acknowledge the ICANN staff's effort to suggest an open, fair, and
   inclusive process for the evaluation of the ICANN At Large process.
   We do, however, believe that a future At Large process should not be
   limited to providing a channel for "general Internet community
   input", but must be designed in a way which makes sure that the
   interests of Internet users and the general Internet community are
   properly represented on all decision-making levels of ICANN,
   including the board.  A constellation which is in favor of any single
   stakeholder group or set of stakeholder groups must be avoided at all
   cost.


2.  Scope and Schedule of the Study

   According to the Staff Paper and Bylaws, the study is supposed to
   follow a "clean-sheet" approach, and to cover even such basic
   decisions as the question whether or not the board should contain At
   Large Members, and - if so - how many (questions (a) and (b) of the
   Staff Report).

   Additionally, the Staff Paper describes a very tight time frame for
   the Study Committee's work, which is, however, expected to produce a
   consensus on the At Large question.



Roessler et al.                                                 [Page 1]

icann-europe    Comments on the At Large Study Committee   December 2000


   We do not believe that the clean-sheet requirement, the broad scope
   of the study, and the time frame and consensus requirements are
   compatible.  More precisely, we are convinced that any outcome of the
   study which - after such a very short period of discussion and
   dialogue - either denies question (a), or answers question (b) in a
   way which is not consistent with the current board structure, would
   not mirror the community's actual consensus.  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. Not satisfying this expectation
   would lead to strong dissent, and endanger the consensus-finding
   mission of the Study Committee.

   Thus, working on questions (a) and (b), the Study Committee would
   waste time, funding, and effort, but would not produce any consensus
   results which aren't well-known before the work even begins.

   We urge the board to abandon the clean-sheet approach, and consider
   the current board structure fixed.  The study should take the work
   which has been done before on this field into account, and
   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.


3.  Principles suggested by the Recommendation

3.1.  Board representation on the Study Committee

   We agree with the ICANN staff that the study group should be small,
   efficient, and separate from the ICANN board.  We also agree that
   there should be individuals serving as a liaison between the board
   and the study group. However, the staff's language - "... should be a
   sitting ICANN Board member, bringing to the Study Committee the
   history and experience of ICANN's efforts to deal with the issue" -
   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.

   In order to avoid this, and to make sure that the Study committee is
   actually balanced and unbiased, it is suggested that two sitting
   members of the current board are appointed to serve on the Study
   Committee, one of them a long-standing member of the board, and one
   of them an elected At Large Director.  This approach would make sure



Roessler et al.                                                 [Page 2]

icann-europe    Comments on the At Large Study Committee   December 2000


   that (1) any possible bias is balanced, and (2) an optimal and broad
   transfer of experience with ICANN's history and the At Large process
   is warranted.

   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.

3.2.  Selection of Chair of the Study Committee

   The staff asks for public suggestions of individuals to serve as
   chair or co-chairs of the Study Committee.  According to the Staff
   Recommendation, the Committee should be chaired by individual(s)
   "whose reputation(s) will help to generate confidence in the
   objectivity of the effort".  Depending on the individual(s) selected
   as liaison(s) between the current board and the Study Committee,
   there may be a public perception that the appointed chair of the
   study committee is being overruled by "board heavyweights".

   This perception could be avoided in two ways: Either, the board could
   appoint an individual as the group's chair whose reputation,
   independence, and objectivity is widely accepted, so that the
   possible influence of the board liaison(s) could be considered
   balanced.  As an alternative, the board could appoint the board
   liaisons as co-chairs of the group.  However, in the case that only
   one individual is serving as a liaison between the board and the
   committee, it should be avoided to appoint that individual as the
   committee chair.

3.3.  Consensus-Building Process

   In view of certain problematic "consensus-building" efforts in the
   DNSO, the board or the committee should establish, at an early point
   of time, a mechanism to ensure that any consensus reported to the
   board and to the public is actually a broad consensus, and not
   limited to some small, but active and well-funded groups.

   Such a mechanism should also make sure that the weight given to
   attendance at eventual public meetings is appropriate. In particular,
   those who can't participate physically in such meetings for whatever
   reasons should not be disenfranchised during the consensus-building
   process. Neither can remote participation during the physical meeting
   be a full remedy, as the Internet community is dispersed over a range
   of different time zones and there are both financial and technical



Roessler et al.                                                 [Page 3]

icann-europe    Comments on the At Large Study Committee   December 2000


   restraints that keep many users from participating remotely via a
   webcast of long duration. Any results generated at such physical
   meetings should therefore be considered preliminary, and be subject
   to online discussion and comment over a reasonable period of time.



Revision History


   00   November 21, 2000
   01   November 22, 2000
   02   November 29, 2000
   03   November 30, 2000
   04   December 15, 2000



Contact

   The authors of this document can be reached under the following e-
   mail addresses:


   Thomas Roessler      <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
   Alexander Svensson   <svensson@icannchannel.de>


   This document has been discussed on the mailing list <icann-
   europe@fitug.de>, see <http://www.fitug.de/icann-europe/>.  The
   authors wish to thank Alan Lenton, Patrick Mayer, Wolfgang
   Kleinwächter and others members of the icann-europe mailing list for
   their constructive and helpful comments.

   Current and ancient versions of this document can be accessed online
   under <ftp://fitug.fitug.de/pub/icann-drafts/>.


Individuals supporting this document

   (...)










Roessler et al.                                                 [Page 4]