[council] From Andy Mueller-Maughan
- To: "Names Council (E-mail)" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [council] From Andy Mueller-Maughan
- From: "Harold J. Feld" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:28:31 -0400
- Sender: email@example.com
- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
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),
- 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
- Rob came with an official (?!) paper from the european
commission (firstname.lastname@example.org) from May 21st.
I will scan this and put on my website tuesday night CET 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, email@example.com worth reading
Materials and some pictures to be on my site tuesday night
when coming back to berlin.
Andy Mueller-Maguhn, firstname.lastname@example.org, Key ID 331F978, http://www.ccc.de/~andy