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

["Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@medea.wz-berlin.de>]

> 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.  

Thomas, we've talked on the phone at length about the election procedure. 
Thus you know already that I am not too fond of your proposal. To tell you the 
truth, after reading Barbara's comments and giving some further thought to it, 
I am even less excited... 
I think it is rather unwise to introduce at  this point the idea of indirect 
elections of the 4 ALM directors. 
1. It means to open a can of worms. To get the board to agree on direct 
elections was a major achievement reached in Cairo. The clean sheet 
character of post election study is the prize we are expected to pay for that 
victory. If we now propose an indirect election of the missing 4 At Large 
Directors, we would not only give up what we have successfully called for less 
than a year ago, we would also contradict the arguments in favor of direct 
elections. 

2. To propose an indirect election of 4 ALM directors is no minor point. If we 
want to avoid chaos & confusion among the global At Large Membership, 
some form of consultation with the Asian and the US members community on 
this point seems to be absolutely necessary. 

However, the post election study is expected to look also into election 
procedures. The right time for proposing a model as you have in mind, might 
be the discussion and drafting period of this section of the study. 
So if you ask me, I would rather take this point out of the draft and bring it up 
again at a later point in the process. 

My apologies for the very late response. 

jeanette


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>