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

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

On 2000-12-04 13:14:22 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> In your mind do you think about a group of people (s)elected in
> the different areas and discussing together to vote advise to
> M.M. Mueller Maguhn, Quaynor, Katoh, .. squattering fours?

No.  As I said earlier, such a council may be modeled like the GAC.
That is, one may wish to create a body which advises the entire
board (and serves as a filter in this function).  Additionally, it
could be used to elect some of the at large directors - but, of
course, not all of them.

>>Do you want to re-open even that question?  This is some of the
>>things I'd consider to be out-of-bounds, in the sense that
>>anyone who has the interest and is willing to participate can do
>>so - just as things have been during the latest elections.

> This is a clean-sheet study. The scope should be something like:

More precisely, this study is supposed to be:

- consensus-building
- clean-sheet
- short-termed

Now, it's quite evident that these three requirements aren't
consistent.  You have to remove one of them in order to get a
practical study:  Take any two of these properties, and you can
conclud e that the third one won't be fullfilled.

> -  who are the @large?
*snip*

All that's quite nice, but does it really need to be specified in
this great detail?  I don't think so.

> The BoD has voted a "clean-sheet" study. 

The BoD has, I think, voted the impossible.  Neither are any sheets
clean any more, nor can all the requirements be achieved.  Thus,
we'll have to look how these requirements can be modified in order
to produce a study which actually makes sense.

> There is no a priori in a clean-sheet study. This is its
> definition.

Guess what...  That's why I'm repeating "abandon the clean-sheet
approach" all over the place.

> This does not stand. If you are not partisan this only means:
> "hey! I made the beginning of the study for you for free"..

Really?  I guess we don't need a study to state the obvious...
The study should be devoted to the non-obvious issues.

>>Similarly, what would the public reaction be when the study's
>>result says: "Let's elect a 15-person at large council (similar
>>to the Names, Address, and Protocol Councils).  Let those 15
>>individuals select 9 at large directors at their own discretion,
>>with no more than 2 directors coming from the same region,
>>country, ..."?  Could we imagine that, in three or four months,
>>there is broad public support on such an approach?  If not, we
>>should say so, and suggest to take this into account when
>>designing the study.

> I do not give it a damn again. As some of the French Prime
> Minister said, "the policy is not made in the street".

While this may disappoint you, we are not talking French national
politics (including such things as a pseudo-monarchical president),
but ICANN.  One of the stated goals - and one of the few things
actually persistent until today - is the claim that ICANN works
based on consensus.  Thus, public outcry is quite a relevant issue
here, and, as we agreed earlier, about the only actual weapon we may
wield.

(Also, please note that _in_ _particular_ French policy has been
made in the street, repeatedly.  How many revolutions and
half-revolutions did you have since 1789?  I don't dare counting.)

> I fear that the representativity you consider becomes filtering.
> I do not think that Andy needs that much an elected council to
> talk to us. I probably need more reasons to do it?

I'm not talking about whether or not anyone is still in touch with
Andy, and about whether or not he is still following any mailing
lists.  I'm talking about the board of directors as a whole.

>>We, those who are participating in this discussion, do of course
>>exist.  And we, those who are signing an eventual public comment
>>to be made to ICANN, should of course try to do it in a way
>>which tries to make sure we are close to the actual community's
>>consensus.

> IMHO it depends on what you call the community consensus. Agreed
> if you consider the future consensus after the study has been
> published. But we do not know it yet, so we may only guess and
> warn and do our best effort to propose doing something sensible
> in a controlled manner. Our atomic bomb is the Study.

> For the time being ICANN in here is an American joke we would
> replace if the European/French interests would be ill treated.
> Depending on the result of the study it may be "WE the ICANN" or
> it can be "forget about the ICANN".



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