<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Andy Mueller-Maguhn on the Board retreat
>From: Andy Mueller-Maguhn <andy@ccc.de>
>Subject: news from the icann board retreat
>Cc: icann-news@lists.ccc.de
>
>Hi,
>
>just a few notices from my flight from jfk, coming from
>the board retreat near NYC in garden city, long island.
>
>Disclaimer: nothing officially has been decided, this is
>a list of my notes of informal discussions.
>
>The retreat in a way was making sense because of it was an
>open discussion about what "icann II" should be, what the
>outcome of the process be etc. We had a less confrontative,
>quiete constructive discussion, just interrupted by more or
>less a few struggles.
>
>But (just the most important points):
>
>- no atlarge election of directors to be expected
>
> for "technical" reasons (donīt know how) the majority
> of the board agreed to not make any direct elections
> with this year. on the direct questions, if any directors
> would say "no direct at-large-elections under no
> circumstances whatsoever" 5 directors outed themself:
> stuart (lynn), vint (cerf), hans (kraijenbrink), rob (blokzijl),
> helmut (schink)
>
>- the majority of the board agreed to the idee of a nomination
> committee (s)electing board members. status of the
> discussion is to keep 18 board members + ceo (to be
> discussed if allowed to vote) and some rought guidelines
> for setting up the nomination committee (including
> seats for advisory committees in the nomcom, that
> means govīs included). but on the other hand side the
> board agreed to the fact, that the empowering/selection
> of board members by governments is not an realistic
> approach (at least for now)
>
>- some important questions like the jurisdiction of the
> organization and the involvement of staff following or
> developing policys where raised but not answered. this
> means: we should watch the limit of the acting people
> even those acting with best attitutes..
>
>- in the discussion about the principles of the corporation
> it was accepted that the outcome must be a balance
> of interests when making policy. freedom of speech
> was at least accepted by a majority to possibly be
> affected when following intellectual property ideas.
> so i do think, there is chances to involve NGOīs acting
> in the area of freedom of speech in a "freedom of speech
> constituency" or however to put something on the other
> side of the intellectual property people
>
>- this means: setting up of the nomcom is the critical
> issue now. taking balance of interests as the goal,
> identifying all actors in the game and their interests
> and impacts on the game is the job for the NGO community
> in my eyes.
>
>And (watch out what comes next before calling it good news):
>
>- Stuart Lynn announced to retire in March of 2003
>
>- Joe Sims as Jones & Days announced to step out of
> acting for ICANN soon. He did not mention a precise
> date/time when, questioned by Vint said something
> like "in the next month or similar to Stuarts retirement"
>
>- Andrew McLaughlin announced to be changing his
> involvement to half time by 1st of July
>
>More stuff:
>
>- Rob came with an official (?!) paper from the european
> commission (gordon.lennox@cec.eu.int) from May 21st.
> I will scan this and put on my website tuesday night CET as
> well as:
>
>- "ICANN II - Issues to be resolved" paper from Christopher
> Wilkinson, May 2002
>
>- CENTR paper "ccTLD Requierements for International
> Coordination of the Domain Name System) from
> Marianne Wolfsgruber, gm@centr.org worth reading
> (online?)
http://www.centr.org/news/ICANN-response.html
>Materials and some pictures to be on my site tuesday night
>when coming back to berlin.
>
>
>regards,
>A.
>
>---
>
>Andy Mueller-Maguhn, andy@ccc.de, Key ID 331F978, http://www.ccc.de/~andy
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|