Re: [icann-eu] Please Sign.

["Cameron Smith" <cameron_smith@mail.com>]

Please add my name, and thanks for all your work keeping this all
going in one direction.

Cameron Smith



Date sent:      	Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:41:37 +0100
From:           	Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To:             	icann-europe@fitug.de
Copies to:      	members-meeting list <members-meeting@egroups.com>
Subject:        	[icann-eu] Please Sign.

> Since, upon my latest messages, nobody replied, I suppose that we
> have some kind of agreement on what the comment could look like.
>
> Those who'd like to sign the document before it's submitted to ICANN
> should please indicate this via an e-mail message to the
> icann-europe mailing list until December 20.
>
> Please note that, if you disagree on individual points of this
> documents, you should still consider signing.  You could, in this
> case, post a comment of your own at ICANN's public comment forum
> which has, so far, been quite unproductive.
>
> For your reference, the document is reproduced below the .signature.
>
> Changes against the last version posted are limited to replacing
> November by December.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> icann-europe                                             Thomas Roessler
> draft-tlr-study-04.txt                                        FITUG e.V.
>
>                                                       Alexander Svensson
>                                                          icannchannel.de
>
>                                                            December 2000
>
>
>                             Comments on the
>          Staff Recommendation on At Large Study Implementation
>
>
>
> Status of This Memo
>
>    The present document is a summary of positions publicly discussed on
>    the icann-europe mailing list.  A list of individuals and
>    organizations supporting this document can be found at the end of
>    this document.
>
>
> 1.  Introduction and Basic Requirements
>
>    We appreciate the publication of the ICANN staff recommendation, and
>    acknowledge the ICANN staff's effort to suggest an open, fair, and
>    inclusive process for the evaluation of the ICANN At Large process.
>    We do, however, believe that a future At Large process should not be
>    limited to providing a channel for "general Internet community
>    input", but must be designed in a way which makes sure that the
>    interests of Internet users and the general Internet community are
>    properly represented on all decision-making levels of ICANN,
>    including the board.  A constellation which is in favor of any single
>    stakeholder group or set of stakeholder groups must be avoided at all
>    cost.
>
>
> 2.  Scope and Schedule of the Study
>
>    According to the Staff Paper and Bylaws, the study is supposed to
>    follow a "clean-sheet" approach, and to cover even such basic
>    decisions as the question whether or not the board should contain At
>    Large Members, and - if so - how many (questions (a) and (b) of the
>    Staff Report).
>
>    Additionally, the Staff Paper describes a very tight time frame for
>    the Study Committee's work, which is, however, expected to produce a
>    consensus on the At Large question.
>
>
>
> Roessler et al.                                                 [Page 1]
>
> icann-europe    Comments on the At Large Study Committee   December 2000
>
>
>    We do not believe that the clean-sheet requirement, the broad scope
>    of the study, and the time frame and consensus requirements are
>    compatible.  More precisely, we are convinced that any outcome of the
>    study which - after such a very short period of discussion and
>    dialogue - either denies question (a), or answers question (b) in a
>    way which is not consistent with the current board structure, would
>    not mirror the community's actual consensus.  The recent At Large
>    elections have produced the strong public expectation that the At
>    Large directors will be elected, and that at least five of them
>    continue to be elected directly. Not satisfying this expectation
>    would lead to strong dissent, and endanger the consensus-finding
>    mission of the Study Committee.
>
>    Thus, working on questions (a) and (b), the Study Committee would
>    waste time, funding, and effort, but would not produce any consensus
>    results which aren't well-known before the work even begins.
>
>    We urge the board to abandon the clean-sheet approach, and consider
>    the current board structure fixed.  The study should take the work
>    which has been done before on this field into account, and
>    concentrate on the question how the selection of At Large directors
>    can be implemented, and what lessons can be learned from the recent
>    At Large elections.  The study should, in particular, analyze the
>    member registration process which has been much criticized in the
>    past.
>
>
> 3.  Principles suggested by the Recommendation
>
> 3.1.  Board representation on the Study Committee
>
>    We agree with the ICANN staff that the study group should be small,
>    efficient, and separate from the ICANN board.  We also agree that
>    there should be individuals serving as a liaison between the board
>    and the study group. However, the staff's language - "... should be a
>    sitting ICANN Board member, bringing to the Study Committee the
>    history and experience of ICANN's efforts to deal with the issue" -
>    suggests that the single board member which is suggested to serve on
>    the Study Committee may be one of the members of ICANN's initial
>    board who still serve (termed "board squatters" by some).  Such a
>    decision of the board would lead to the public perception that the
>    Study Committee is biased.
>
>    In order to avoid this, and to make sure that the Study committee is
>    actually balanced and unbiased, it is suggested that two sitting
>    members of the current board are appointed to serve on the Study
>    Committee, one of them a long-standing member of the board, and one
>    of them an elected At Large Director.  This approach would make sure
>
>
>
> Roessler et al.                                                 [Page 2]
>
> icann-europe    Comments on the At Large Study Committee   December 2000
>
>
>    that (1) any possible bias is balanced, and (2) an optimal and broad
>    transfer of experience with ICANN's history and the At Large process
>    is warranted.
>
>    As an alternative to appointing two sitting board members, the board
>    may wish to consider the possibility that a former member of the
>    board could serve as the liaison and provide the necessary experience
>    with the ICANN process. Such a former member of the board could,
>    ideally, be complemented by some candidate who was not elected into
>    the board during the at large elections, but got a respectable number
>    of votes.
>
> 3.2.  Selection of Chair of the Study Committee
>
>    The staff asks for public suggestions of individuals to serve as
>    chair or co-chairs of the Study Committee.  According to the Staff
>    Recommendation, the Committee should be chaired by individual(s)
>    "whose reputation(s) will help to generate confidence in the
>    objectivity of the effort".  Depending on the individual(s) selected
>    as liaison(s) between the current board and the Study Committee,
>    there may be a public perception that the appointed chair of the
>    study committee is being overruled by "board heavyweights".
>
>    This perception could be avoided in two ways: Either, the board could
>    appoint an individual as the group's chair whose reputation,
>    independence, and objectivity is widely accepted, so that the
>    possible influence of the board liaison(s) could be considered
>    balanced.  As an alternative, the board could appoint the board
>    liaisons as co-chairs of the group.  However, in the case that only
>    one individual is serving as a liaison between the board and the
>    committee, it should be avoided to appoint that individual as the
>    committee chair.
>
> 3.3.  Consensus-Building Process
>
>    In view of certain problematic "consensus-building" efforts in the
>    DNSO, the board or the committee should establish, at an early point
>    of time, a mechanism to ensure that any consensus reported to the
>    board and to the public is actually a broad consensus, and not
>    limited to some small, but active and well-funded groups.
>
>    Such a mechanism should also make sure that the weight given to
>    attendance at eventual public meetings is appropriate. In particular,
>    those who can't participate physically in such meetings for whatever
>    reasons should not be disenfranchised during the consensus-building
>    process. Neither can remote participation during the physical meeting
>    be a full remedy, as the Internet community is dispersed over a range
>    of different time zones and there are both financial and technical
>
>
>
> Roessler et al.                                                 [Page 3]
>
> icann-europe    Comments on the At Large Study Committee   December 2000
>
>
>    restraints that keep many users from participating remotely via a
>    webcast of long duration. Any results generated at such physical
>    meetings should therefore be considered preliminary, and be subject
>    to online discussion and comment over a reasonable period of time.
>
>
>
> Revision History
>
>
>    00   November 21, 2000
>    01   November 22, 2000
>    02   November 29, 2000
>    03   November 30, 2000
>    04   December 15, 2000
>
>
>
> Contact
>
>    The authors of this document can be reached under the following e-
>    mail addresses:
>
>
>    Thomas Roessler      <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>    Alexander Svensson   <svensson@icannchannel.de>
>
>
>    This document has been discussed on the mailing list <icann-
>    europe@fitug.de>, see <http://www.fitug.de/icann-europe/>.  The
>    authors wish to thank Alan Lenton, Patrick Mayer, Wolfgang
>    Kleinwächter and others members of the icann-europe mailing list for
>    their constructive and helpful comments.
>
>    Current and ancient versions of this document can be accessed online
>    under <ftp://fitug.fitug.de/pub/icann-drafts/>.
>
>
> Individuals supporting this document
>
>    (...)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Roessler et al.                                                 [Page 4]
>