[icann-eu] CONSENSUS?

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

Folks,

it seems that nobody has answered so far on Alexander's message.
Thus, I suppose that we mostly agree that we can start collecting
signatures for the present draft.

If you have any material changes to suggest, please react NOW.

Thanks.

On 2000-12-08 11:55:31 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 11:55:31 +0100
> From: Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>
> To: icann-europe@fitug.de, roessler@does-not-exist.org
> Subject: Draft/deadline approaching rapidly
> X-Mailer: Alexander Svensson's registered AK-Mail 3.1 publicbeta2a [ger]
> 
> 
> 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
> 

-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>