Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Jonathan,

>	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.

Vint Cerf proposed to keep 4 out of 9 initial directors, to have the 
total of 9 at-large.
I replied that I was less concerned about the number of at-large as much
 I was concerned about the method of elections: the point was "how" to 
elect the Directors, not "how many".
Off my memory, nobody else intervened on this hypothesis, so I agree, 
there was not a lot of debate.

Regards
Roberto


> 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@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@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