Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

Harald,

	I was there.  The Board went into the Cairo meeting expecting to go
forward with indirect elections, via the At-Large Council.  Hallway
discussion and the outcry at the Board's public forum made clear the extent
and depth of opposition to that approach.  As a result, on the final day of
the conference, the Board ended up adopting a *new* plan that had never
been publicly mooted .  It may well be that the board heard "many
conflicting views and options" in private consultations during the meeting.
 I don't know; those consultations were private, and I wasn't privy to
them.  Nor do I know who the Board chose for its private consultations.  I
do know that there were no consultations on that issue open to the public.
The public forum was devoted to detailing the undesirability of indirect
elections; the issue of holdover "board-squatting" directors was not
discussed then.  The idea that some of the initial directors might stay on
past November was first publicly raised during the board's meeting the
following day, when there was no longer any opportunity for outside input.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com




At 10:32 PM 11/4/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>Roberto,
>
>the Cairo decision was indeed the point at which we wish we had seen this.
>
>However, I have been told that the decision in Cairo was made after hearing 
>many conflicting views and options, including an explicit proposal to leave 
>the four seats empty (which I think the current incumbents would probably 
>have preferred).
>
>I still have not heard a word from the people who were in favour of this 
>decision rather than the "leave them empty" one.
>This worries me quite a bit - fielding a proposal for motion without having 
>heard anything from the "other side" seems worrisome to me.
>
>You were in Cairo. Do you know anyone who can offer an opinion?
>
>[BTW - I am coming to the conclusion that the bylaws of ICANN are horribly 
>badly written. They mix up the functions of "contract between the community 
>and the organization" and "activities ongoing at the moment" most 
>throughly. The most glaring example is that the schedule of the review 
>committee on whether or how the At Large representation should continue - 
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5 - is written into the 
>BYLAWS, not just a board decision. This is stupid.]
>
>                    Harald
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
>+47 41 44 29 94
>Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html