I support "Comments from the icann-europe mailing list" and
"Comments of CDT,
Common Cause, PCMLP".I want to emphasize two points which are already mentioned
well
in the above two comments.
[1] Abandon clean sheet approach
As described
in "Principle for a New System 4. Representation"
of White Paper, representation
of Internet users in ICANN is
an uncompromising principle. And the result of
last At Large
Election already showed us that direct election by At Large
Members
is working well (even though not perfectly) and can
be applied to remaing 4 seats.
So,
following the clean sheet approach - especially working
on question (a) and (b)
- will be like revisiting already
answered questions and wasting time, money
and effort.
[2] Guarantee funding for study
According to staff recommendation,
study committee will be a
relativly small group and members have their expertises
and
experiences in Internet, election process and diverse curltures.
They
should facilitate consensus development process among
several studies over the
world within given time limit.
It shows us that study committee itself is not
a good place
to work on funding issue.
So, ICANN should guarantee enough funding
for study committee
and study committee should play a minimum role needed about
funding.