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

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

On 2000-12-01 19:10:59 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

[possibly thanking the staff]

>>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.

> I fully agree with what you try to do. But IMHO you misread the
> situation. So let clarify why I want you to be tough with our
> friends of the Staff (they most probably read that mail).

Please don't confuse being friendly in tone with being soft with
respect to actual issues.

>>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.

> What I mean the open question is from 0 to 19 @large Directors

Should we really consider this question to be open?  Should we
really ask for a study which reconsiders the entire board structure?
I still believe that this would be highly dangerous.

>>> 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?

> I want 9 of them elected in the best way. I am not sure that
> directly is the best way. I consider that the US presidential
> election is direct and indirect and could be a good model. But
> this is just an idea of mine.

The US presidential direction is a direct election with funny rules
of counting, pretending to be an indirect one.

Do you think electing a group of people who can, at their own
discretion, select all or at least most of the at large directors
would be a good idea?

> You only address the 9 first and and least important point in my
> mail. The new ideas are what the Staff is expecting on IMHO.

I agree with Alexander that these are issues which are mostly
covered by the questions which are on the board's list.  I don't
believe that there is any need to address these questions at this
point of time.

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