Gerry, Yes we should discuss this. Brian. In message <80256A0E.0054545B.00@marconicomms.com>, Gerry Lawrence <Gerry.Lawrence@MARCONI.COM> writes >Friends, > >as you may have seen on the ICANN website, the proposed revision to the Verisign >agreement has generated a large amount of public comment, some of which is >extremely critical of the ICANN Directors. There is always the possibility that >one or more of the writers might try get onto the ICANN Board in order to change >things. > >One of the routes that would be open to them is through the At Large membership, >and another would be through the public call part of our own MOU that says: > >(b) The Protocol Council will conduct an open call for nominations for any open >PSO seats on the ICANN Board. Each Signing SDO is entitled to nominate >candidates by procedures of its own choosing. Additionally, nominations from the >public at large will be allowed under conditions to be defined by the Protocol >Council. The Protocol Council will select the PSO nominees to the ICANN Board >from among these nominees. ICANN Directors selected by the Protocol Council may, >but need not, be members of the Protocol Council or any SDO. > >We have never defined the conditions under which this would operate, although we >did make a public posting of last year's vacancy. My concern is that if a >person such as one of the writers to the open discussion forum were to apply to >the PSO for selection to the ICANN Board, and we did not select that person, >then he/she might make our own lives very difficult. It would be much easier >for us if we could point to the agreed conditions and state why that person did >not fit the requirements, if that were to be the case. > >Perhaps we should agree a date soon for an audioconference in order to discuss >this point. > >Kind regards, > >Gerry -- B W Moore Lucent Technologies Tel: +44 1206 762335 Fax: +44 1206 762336 =========================================================================