Re: [icann-eu] CONSENSUS?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Thomas and all,


 I had already sent in our requested language and other changes.  Possibly
you missed them?  Please advise.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208