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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Thomas,

At 16:07 04/12/00, you wrote:
>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.

The GAC is a replacement for not having Governmental Directors.
What you describe is pure NC. Am I wrong?

Why would it serve as a filter? I understand you take that word
positively, but even then should not this belong to the @large
Directors?

> >>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 may be true, but it should be up to the study to prove it.
What is asked is to help making them 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.

I understand your logic, but I am afraid you misunderstand the
whole situation. The board has accepted 5 @large and voted to
keep the 4 squatters. Your only a priori should be that the Board
wants to get rid of the @large. You also should consider that
your a priori will not stand very long against the documented
(and payed) demands from Peter Degate Trush and Peter de
Blanc.

> > -  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.

as you say: Ups..! you want people to vote but do not care
about who and how much they will be: 17000 Germans or billions
of Indians and Chineses. Will they be active, existing, potential
users? stakeholders? Free or paying Members. If paying, how
much? depending on the country? Will the amount be related to
the rates described by Staff in its proposition to TLDs.

> > 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.

The demand for a clean-sheet study is a political consensus
within the BoD. What you say is a "grin in the face" of Hans K.
The least you demonstrate your position, the more you support
his own position that you cannot defend it because it does not
stand.

> > 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.

The clean-sheet study is to have a logical result. In print. No
a priori being publicly accepted. If they accept your a priori you will
have to accept Hans K. a priori too: that @large are of no use.

> > 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.

What is obvious is that 4 anti-@large Directors seat as @large
Directors and consider your position as absurd, non consensual,
and obviously detrimental to the ICANN and that up to our
knowledge they have the majority within the BoD.

Jefsey