[icann-eu] Re: [members-meeting] Please Sign.

[Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>]

Dear Thomas,

As I said in a private note to you, I owe you an apology for
not having responded earlier in this discussion.  I shall be in
Europe (Andorra) for the next two weeks visiting family,
and I have been very busy with end of year chores and
preparations.

I think the letter looks quite good.  I have to confess, however,
that my level of cynicism is probably at an all time high, having
just experienced the presidential election here.  I keep on
thinking of how our words could be used against us.

I still am concerned about the status of the remaining four
at large Board members, since the letter makes it clear that
we are not calling for their direct election.  I realize that the
current wording is a compromise from an earlier version that
explicitly called for their indirect election.  But I worry about
who will elect the remaining four if they are not elected by
direct election.  If, for example, they were to be elected by
the entire Board, then the wishes of our elected at large
Board members could easily be outvoted.  We could find
ourselves with nine at large Board members, at least four of
whom we feel are not working in the best interests of the at
large community.

I am willing to go along with the current wording if that is
what is necessary to obtain a large number of signatures.
But it concerns me, and I fear that it could be used against
us if some of us (me, for example) subsequently call for the
direct election of all nine at large Board members.

On another topic, your point 3.3 is well taken. I'd like to
suggest that we call explicitly for well documented and followed
policies and procedures that allow adequate time for public
comment on any significant actions that ICANN is planning.
One of the most serious problems that we face is the lack of
such policies and the fact that ICANN frequently does things
in an ad hoc fashion that makes it very difficult, if not impossible,
for many of us to participate.

One other suggestion that I have relates to the discussion of the
staffing of the study in which you suggest including at least one
elected at large Board member.  Given my current state of paranoia,
I can imagine that the one elected Board member who appears
to least represent our concerns could be selected.  If we were
to complain, we would then have our own words thrown in
our collective faces.

Therefore, I think we should instead request that at least two
of the committee be current at large ELECTED Board members.
I believe that there is a sound argument for making this request.
After all, those of us who went through the election probably
have the greatest insights into the strengths and weakness of
the procedure.  In addition, I don't think we should include
other options, since any options that we suggest could be used
on the grounds that we suggested them - even if they are not
what we want.

I shall be logging on tomorrow (Saturday) before we leave,
and I'll respond to any email dealing with this topic that I receive.
I shall also bring my computer with me, but when I travel
outside the U.S., I always worry that I may not be able to
log on.  One scenario is that I won't be able to log on until
I am in Andorra around the middle of next week.

Again, I apologize to you and to the other members of these
lists for not having responded much sooner.

Regards,
Barbara

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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]
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/_/_/976879032/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> members-meeting-unsubscribe@egroups.com