Re: [icann-eu] Summary

["Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@medea.wz-berlin.de>]

>   -> 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.


Just for clarification, I am not strongly opposed to such a model. I've argued
against proposing indirect elections for 4 At Large directors it now and
suggested to leave it to the study group(s) to discuss its merits.
While I am very much against proposing indirect elections for mere tactical
reasons, I would be open to such a model if someone were able to show
convincingly that the results of indirect elections are more representative, fair
and democratic than direct elections.
I'd hope that the study groups do a good job at weighing the pros and cons of
all conceivable solutions.

jeanette


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.
>
>   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.
>
> - 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.
>
>   -> 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.
>
>   One possible way out of this mine field may be the following
>   approach: Appoint a former director in order to communicate the
>   necessary experience with ICANN's history, and appoint one of the
>   newly-elected at large directors to communicate experience with
>   the election process, and serve as a liaison to the board.
>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>