Re: [icann-eu] draft-tlr-study-03.txt (was: LAST CALL)

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

On 2000-12-01 05:01:53 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> I waited you had well prepared your draft study to comment it.

First of all, that's not a draft study, but comments on the staff
paper about the study.

> and that critics are really easy when you do not do the work ....

And, in particular, if you had one week to post them since the
latest draft.

> 1. I do not understand why the Staff would be thanked to
>    interfere. ICANN is not directed by Staff but by the current
>    BoD. It happens that by several maneuvers prepared by bylaws
>    changes we are in a situation where the ambitions of a few may
>    lead to the ICANN collapse. Through this study, through gTLD
>    absurd management, through total lack of understanding of the
>    iDNs issues, through an incredible contempt at their non
>    American partners.

>    I accept you try to do your job and try to work a solution for
>    this study from this mess, as I try to do it in some other
>    parts. But please do not start thanking them for that! Tell
>    them that what is to follow is a firm and peaceful
>    presentation, and that any trespassing will incur atomic
>    response.

First of all, the staff is apparently donig some work on making this
study possible.  Thanking them for this, and for having set up the
possibility to comment, is (1) a matter of politeness, and (2) helps
to create a more friendly and possibly constructive atmosphere.

Finally, could you please show me what kind of nuclear arsenal we
have, with the possible exception of public embarassment (which
isn't a "nuclear" option, to begin with)?

> 2. You cannot have a clean-sheet approach and limit yourself to a
>    representation of the users interests (what you present as the
>    maximum possibility).

I don't understand?  What we are saying is this: From known
a-priori-bounds on the possible consensus, the clean-sheet approach
is too broad, and won't necessarily produce consensus.  Thus,
abandon it, and do the study within the constraints we have.

> 3. I am not sure I understand the sentence about a constellation.
>    I do not grasp the English meaning of it: what is the
>    constellation in here?

Replace it by "board structure" if you like.

> 5. The phrase "and that five of them continue to be elected
>    directly" is to be removed to reflect the truth.

You don't think there is a public expectation that at least five of
the directors be elected directly?

> 6. I know that in your+jeannette list of points the demands
>    concerning the @large directors elections were not very
>    demanding. But the position of the list and of the GA is
>    clear: "9 @large directors elected" ASAP, the "4 squatters
>    out" and "as soon elected as soon seated".

We don't say anything else.  I just say that ICANN can forget any
consensus if they come up with a model which does not have direct
elections for at least five of the directors, and does not elect the
remaining five.

> 7. If I read you well Hans Kraaijenbrink + Matsamu Katoh is your
>    favorite ticket for handling the Study. 

They are my absolute dream-team, of course. ;-)

>    I think we should be clear: no current Director should be
>    involved in a study concerning other Directors. If experience
>    is to be found, it should be looked for among former
>    Directors.

> 8. I understand you want Jeannette to participate to the study,

I want what?  I could certainly imagine that Jeanette could do a
good job on a study, but this doesn't imply that I want her to
participate in ICANN's Study Committee, and it also doesn't imply
that she's the only "number two" candidate who could reasonably
serve on the Study Committee.  (In fact, it may quite well be that
those who are going to work on a study themselves will _not_
participate in the Committee.)

You seem to see hidden agendas where there are none.

>    but your suggestion is too transparent. The study team should
>    meet and report on the @large groups, initiatives,
>    development, sites, etc... existing or currently developing.
>    (the study will be carried 3 to 9 months from now).

> 9. You seem to presuppose that the Chair or the co-Chairs will
>    biased against @large (ie against the USG position) and you
>    plead for a solutions to deal with that. I think the
>    prerequisites are: - every Chair and co-Chair to be unbiased -
>    to represent a world area - the Chair (and the future ICANN
>    President also) not to be of the same citizenship as the ICANN
>    Chair.

No, I don't presuppose that.  Rather, I'm afraid that the Chair may
be seen as a alibi person in public.  In order to avoid that, I
suggest to look at the real weights on the Committee, and select the
Chair or co-Chairs accordingly.

> I know I change the spirit of your document. Did you work with
> hans Klein on it? 

I suppose he saw it, although I don't recall any comments from him.

> The ICC should help you and participate. 

You may have noticed that quite a few messages concerning the drafts
were CCed to the members-meeting mailing list.

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