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

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

Barbara and all,

  You express some very reasonable concerns here Barbara.  Ones that
we [INEGroup] share with you.  It is our opinion that the letter stating
positions in question is not well vetted to date.  However given the short
time frame remaining and the holiday season upon us, it would seem
that, as you put it, and accompanying letter from interested parties
is the only way to express some misgivings in the letter in question.

  I also contacted Thomas thru this list regarding some of our members
concerns which I believe represent a large number of ICANN-EU
@large members.  It seems to have gone ignored.  Hence we also
feel that we must also put forth an accompanying letter expressing
some misgivings in the letter in question as well.

Barbara Simons wrote:

> 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>

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