[icann-eu] Draft/deadline approaching rapidly

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Dear all,

the deadline for comments on the staff proposal
is officially December 27, but due to the holidays
it will probably be hard to get the message through
to others later than December 22. If we reckon with
one or two weeks for people to sign our comments,
we should actually have it ready *now*.

Have a look at the Public Comment Forum: There are 32
comments, several of them relating to .web or
Vint Cerf or general critique of ICANN (including
a lynch mob fantasy), but *very little* comment 
on the issues raised in the staff proposal.

In his "Summary" posting, Thomas Roessler has tried to 
gauge consensus on the issues. As to some of the reactions:

=== Board directors participation
Roberto Gaetano has recommended choosing a former initial 
director (strongest candidate: Greg Crew) as liason.
Cameron Smith suggests that a former member could be just 
as reasonable a liaison as a sitting member. Wolfgang 
Kleinwächter had previously proposed lobbying for Greg Crew.
It looks like this could really be the way out.

=== Direct vs. indirect
Jeanette Hofmann has recommended not to suggest indirect 
elections now and to leave this issue to the study group(s);
Ted Byfield has supported this. Barbara Simons also
recommended that we not call for indirect elections;
Cameron Smith agrees but thinks indirect elections are better 
than continued boardsquatting. Jefsey Morfin has suggested
that the mode of election may be partly up for negotiation,
he wants to claims 19 and not concede less than 9 directors.
Karl Auerbach has called for direct elections because of the 
advantages for members under California law; Nii Quaynor 
has supported this. Harald Alvestrand, Roberto Gaetano and 
Thomas Roessler have questioned the California law argument.

It seems that nobody wants to *push* for indirect elections,
whereas a number of people want to leave this to the Study
Committee, provided that *5* are directly elected and the
number of At Large Directors (9) is *not* reduced.

Once again: The deadline is approaching rapidly, and if
we agree on a final draft, everyone who has additional comments 
(e.g. as to funding, timing -- issues not addressed in the draft)
can and should submit them to ICANN independently.
But I think we are quite close to a satisfactory text!

Best regards,
/// Alexander