Re: [members-meeting] Re: [icann-eu] Summary

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com (Wed 12/06/00 at 11:55 AM +0100):

> To be pragmatic, and accepting the will of the majority who sees this 
> short-sighted ancillary benefits as "incredibly valuable", may I ask you to 
> what extent do we risk to lose them in case of a mixed system (5 direct + 4 
> indirect). IANAL, but it seems to me that the moment you have even just 1 
> Director elected directly, you qualify for being a membership organization.

that might be true in theory, but then the status karl was speaking 
of would depend on just one director rather than on five or nine of 
them. that's not pragmatic.

unless i'm very mistaken, there doesn't seem to be much of a plural-
ity of opinion on this list to support an indirect-election option.
since ICANN's current staff and board has demonstrated that they're
fairly hostile to the idea of direct elections, it's certainly true
that conceding an indirect method (in whole or part) is more 'prag-
matic'--but is that really the point?

cheers,
t
-- 

\|/ ____ \|/ 
@~/ oO \~@    <http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/>
/_( \__/ )_\ 
\_U__/