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

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Thanks for all the comments!
First a general thought on the comments received:
Supporting the document -- when we have a final draft -- 
does and should obviously not prevent us from individually 
submitting additional comments to ICANN. To keep with the
current theological theme: We are obviously not writing
scripture here... ;) 

What we can do here is try to set up *borders* for the 
study, that is: say what is off limits. E.g. many of the 
very detailed proposed questions from Jefsey should definitely
be on the committee's agenda, but I doubt whether we
can (or even should) establish a complete list of questions
for the committee. The current draft instead suggests that
the committee concentrates on one main issue (instead of
a clean-sheet study):
  *how* the selection of At Large directors can be 
  *implemented*, and what lessons can be learned from the 
  recent At Large elections.
In my view, this implies pondering many of Jefsey's questions.

On the two vital points:

==== Who will be on the Study Committee?
As to board members, two options are in the draft:
 a) a current director --and--
    an elected At Large director
 --or--
 b) a former director --and--
    a former At Large candidate with sufficient support.

My impression is that having a board liaison (=current board 
member) would probably really be helpful for the Study 
Committee. But, as to Masanobu Katoh: He is an At-Large-elected 
director just like Andy Müller-Maguhn. We may favour Andy's views
on the future of At Large, but I guess it would be difficult
to find objective criteria for barring an elected At Large 
director, unless we want to bar all current directors. 

As to Jeanette Hofmann: Of course she would be a valuable
addition to the Study Committee, as would Barbara Simons
and probably also Larry Lessig (other candidates with
comparatively strong support during the elections). I'm
not so sure whether we should endorse persons in this
document.

As to Kraaijenbrink and other Interim At Large directors:
How about
   However, the staff's language [...] 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. We urge the ICANN board
   not to endanger the committee's mission by letting the 
   unelected directors decide their successors' future.

==== Direct election of "nine" or "at least five"?
The draft suggested that all nine are *elected*, between five 
and nine of them *directly*. Some seem to fear this could 
be (mis)read as endorsement for the unelected Interim At Large 
directors. I suggest we drop the contentious half-sentence
and go for:
   The recent At Large elections have produced the strong 
   public expectation that all nine At Large directors will 
   be elected by the At Large members. Not satisfying this 
   expectation would lead to strong dissent and render the 
   consensus-finding mission of the Study Committee impossible.
(This would additionally imply to swap 'election' for 
'selection' in section 2.)

Jefsey Morfin wrote (refering to Thomas):
> 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".
Remember that I tried to establish a time frame within which
the At Large directors should be elected and seated. There
was hardly any comment on this, so I withdrew my proposal.

Best regards,
/// Alexander