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

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

On 2000-12-01 10:47:48 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>>there seems to be a large 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.

> I'd be very, very careful in advancing such thesis. We have
> already been accused of being "membership-squatters", a bunch of
> self-nominated persons who are trying to hijack the membership
> and claim their representativity without basis. Trying to revert
> the direct election approach would easily create open and wide
> opposition inside the membership to our effort, which is the last
> thing we can afford.

What I'm saying is this: Most of the proposals I've heared so far
include such a council, and I haven't heared anyone speak out loudly
against this.  About the only opposition concerned the naming,
saying that "at large council" could have the connotation of
indirect elections - but that's not an opposition which concerns the
actual idea, but just the wording.

Next topic: It seems that we hardly have a real consensus on direct
or indirect elections.  Looking at those who have spoken out on this
list, we have some who are proposing or have been proposing indirect
models (such as Jefsey - BTW, anything to report from your other
friends in France?), some who want direct elections, and some who
can imagine hybrid models.  Additionally, we have the CDT study
which makes some strong arguments in favor of direct elections, and
which neither we nor the ICANN staff nor board should disregard.

> I'd stay with the point that all nine Directors must be elected
> by the membership, period. 

I could certainly agree with that - however, I'm sure I'm not the
only one who would read this as "elected, be it direct or indirect"
- as opposed to your next sentence:

> I can't see how admitting an indirect election could help our
> cause now.

So, what's the point you are actually trying to make here.


In any event, I suppose that we could legitimately claim that there
is consensus on the following:

- There should be some kind of at large body ("council", "advisory
  council", whatever) which serves as a direct liaison between
  ICANN's board and the general public.  This could, as Wolfgang
  Kleinwächter suggests, be modeled along the lines of the
  government advisory council.

- There should be nine at large directors which are elected by the
  general public.  Additionally, there is strong support (but not
  yet consensus) for electing these directly.

> I'd also say, more generally speaking, that we must show that we
> want to serve the membership, and not the opposite. 

Of course.

> This is also one of the reasons why I proposed to state that any
> conclusions drawn from the Study should be subject to a direct,
> general consultory vote among the membership, which should not
> bind the actions of the Board, but should make it clear whether
> any action that could be taken by the Board has or does not have
> consensus among the At Large community.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter already made some of the most important
comments on this.  Also, such a vote would involve considerable
organizational overhead, fears of take-over by small,
self-interested groups, and all the other well-known arguments.
Actually, the last thing we could need would be a study on the
question how and whether the membership should be asked on the
outcome of the study which is about to begin...

> Again, I think that it would be very difficult for the Board,
> from the point of view of public relations, to take decisions
> such as the elimination of some or all At Large Directors if it
> is clearly proven that the Internet community is against them.

I'm not sure this is even necessary.  As things are looking like
now, we may have a variety of studies from different backgrounds. If
- and that's what I expect - most of these studies and any comments
received during the process indicate strong support for at large
directors, it will be _extremely_ difficult for ICANN's staff and
board to claim that consensus is looking otherwise.  Also, we should
not forget that the basic board structure (nine at large directors,
nine SO directors, plus the CEO and president) is one of the things
which were left over from ICANN's earliest days.  This means that
trying to remove the at large directors would not only be an
embarassment to us, but possibly also to the governments involved.

> The only real strength we have is the number and variety of our
> members - so let's use it to defend ourselves.

While I do believe that we don't have any nuclear capacities right
now, I'm not convinced that this is our only strength...  (Also, who
are "our members"?)

> I didn't get whether other people (except you, Thomas) agreed or
> disagreed with this point, so I'd like to get a wider feedback on
> this.

This would indeed be helpful.

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