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

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

On 2000-12-16 01:26:05 -0800, Barbara Simons wrote:

> 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'd seriously suggest that you, as an individual, or possibly even
speaking for the ICC or parts thereof, publish some comment on
ICANN's public forum which goes further than our document, in that
it doesn't just try to set limits, but rather gives ideas on what to
do.

> I am willing to go along with the current wording if that is
> what is necessary to obtain a large number of signatures.

Well, we had to proceed to the signature collection phase at some
point which would leave us enough time until December 27.  That was
the reason for casting the current text in stone and asking for
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.

I do not think so.  In particular, if you'd publish a "dissenting
opinion" on some parts of the document along with its initial
publication.

> 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.

I still have the hope that some or all of the elected directors
would vote against such a move, which would shed an extremely bad
light on the study as a whole.

> I shall be logging on tomorrow (Saturday) before we leave, and
> I'll respond to any email dealing with this topic that I receive.

Thank you.  Your comments are always welcome!

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