Re: [icann-eu] Summary

["Cameron Smith" <cameron_smith@mail.com>]

Thanks for your summary Thomas, in fact if you could manage to
do one of these every couple of weeks that would be great.

>Date sent:      	Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:15:36 +0100
>From:           	Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>
> - Board structure.
>
>   From re-reading all the messages, it seems to me that the demand
>   which is closest to consensus on this list is this:
>
>   -> Abandon the clean-sheet approach.
>   -> Stick with the current board structure (9 + 9 + 1) a priori.
>   -> Concentrate on methods for the selection of the 9 at large
>      directors (don't start shouting, election vs selection comes
>      next).
>
>   The argument behind this is that the study committee is chartered
>   to find a solution which would create community consensus.
>   There's no point in trying to find community consensus on a
>   reduction of the number of At Large directors, since such
>   consensus won't occur.  Studying this question in detail is, thus,
>   a waste of time and money.
Such a consensus certainly won't occur in the short and medium-term (i.e. at least the next 12 months), although it may well emerge over a longer period.
Therefore I support your 3 points above at least as a focus for us over next 6 - 12 months.

> - Selection vs. election vs. ...
>
>   -> Could we imagine consensus on a model like the one Roberto
>      Gaetano suggested?  That is, use an improved version of the
>      latest elections for five of the at large seats, and some kind
>      of indirect election for the remaining four.
>
>      Some of us apparently can.  Others, such as Jeanette Hofmann
>      and Ted Byfield, are strongly opposed.  Still others (Barbara
>      Simons) argue tactically, and say that this idea, once
>      introduced, could be abused in order to justify the selection
>      of the remaining four seats by the rest of the board.  I'm
>      inclined to disagree with Barbara on this question, since the
>      model she proposes is out of bounds eo ispo, but then again...
>
>   As a conclusion, I do believe that the last option should be
>   examined by the study.  But I also think that we may savely claim
>   that the other three models don't need to be examined in depth by
>   the study committee, since consensus on them is just impossible.
Yes.  I must say that I am opposed to indirect elections for the
remaining 4 both inherently and on tactical grounds (a la Barbara)
but indirectly-elected is better than allowing the continuance
of squatting.  Certainly we should focus our energies on this broad
model.

>   Of course, working out the details of any such model, and
>   analyzing t he latest elections, are one of the most important
>   topics of the study.
Exactly.

> - The Study Committee.
>
>   There has been quite some discussion on who should and should not
>   go into the study committee.  The current staff paper suggests one
>   sitting board member, and mentions experience, which implies that
>   no of the newly-elected directors matches this description.
>
>   Suggestions we had so far included these:
>
>   -> Appoint _two_ sitting board members who can balance each other,
>      one of them being an elected one. Some mentioned that this
>      option would still permit for a Kraaijenbrink-Katoh ticket,
>      which looks like a horror scenario for some, and would
>      certainly draw criticism.  (Froomkins even called the
>      Kraaijenbrink option a "slap in our face".)
>
>   -> Don't include any sitting board members at all, and ask a
>      former member of the board to participate.  Greg Crew was
>      mentioned by Wolfgang Kleinwächter.
>
>      Alexander Svensson mentioned that this option would not include
>      a reasonable liaison between the board and the committee, and
>      that including a sitting director may actually be favorable.
I think a former member could be just as reasonable a liaison as a
sitting member, it depends on the personality of the individual, and
crucially, how they see they role (i.e. do they properly take on the
role of 'mediator' as well as just voicing their own opinions).

>   -> Include a former director and a candidate from the latest
>      elections.  Individuals mentioned were (in alphabetical order)
>      Jeanette Hofmann, Lawrence Lessig, and Barbara Simons.  There
>      are probably others who may be suitable.
>
>   I don't see any consensus in this question, except - maybe - on
>   the feeling that any of the "board squatters" would not be
>   acceptable as a member of the study committee.  However, we should
>   be aware of the fact that accepting the experience requirement and
>   excluding the "board squatters" from the set of acceptable
>   liaisons would imply that we'd call for one of the SO directors to
>   serve on the study committee.  Some may find this undesirable.
If at the moment there doesn't appear to be much consensus on
this could we focus discussion over the next week or so on this
topic?

cameron