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

[Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>]

Dear Thomas,

I had not realized that the letter is unchangeable.  I certainly
agree that we need to allocate adequate time in order to
gather a large number of signatures prior to the deadline,
and we have to allow for the fact that the deadline is in
the midst of the holiday season.

Still, I wonder what the impact will be of having dissenting
opinions published.  It would be preferable for everyone to
be in agreement on a single letter.

And I now have an additional concerned, based on a
private email that someone sent me in response to my
posting, that I have given a blueprint to anyone who wants
to undermine what we are attempting, while still literally
doing what we have asked.

In response to my concern that the Board might appoint
the elected at-large member who is least sympathetic to
our concerns, you say below:

"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 agree that it's likely that some of the other at large directors
would vote against such a move.  But that doesn't help us to
achieve our goal, which in the short run is to retain all nine
elected at large seats and in the long run to develop the at
large membership into a meaningful force within ICANN.

I worry that our elected representatives are likely to be
marginalized, especially if they are seen as voting against
the majority on almost every issue.  I think it would be far
better if we didn't put them in that awkward position to
begin with.

My primary concern remains that I can see a scenario by
which everything we ask for in the letter is done, but we
are extremely unhappy with the outcome.

If the letter is unchangeable, then I shall sign it.  But I'd prefer
not having to write an accompanying letter expressing my
concerns.

Regards,
Barbara

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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>