<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
- To: vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com, sotiris@hermesnetwork.com
- Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 07:39:16 +0000
- Cc: k@widgital.com, terastra@terabytz.co.nz, edyson@edventure.com, ga@dnso.org, alexander@svensson.de, roessler@does-not-exist.org, abel@able-towers.com, forum@atlargestudy.org, simons@acm.org
- Sender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org
Vint,
>
>I am not sure I can dig out the information from archives but the
>whole voting process was considered a one-shot effort, to be followed
>by evaluation, which has now been done. For privacy and convenience,
>ICANN committed to limiting the use of the voting mailing list to
>election matters only. The proposals from ALSC suggest a new structure
>for at-large participation and that is why the invitation has been
>issued. There is no direct connection between the one-shot voting
>subset of interested parties and the invitation to create a new
>at-large structure.
>
I am not sure that there was consensus on the at-large election to be a
bird-of-a-feather. There were at that time different points of view, and
even if it had been stated from the beginning that an evaluation phase would
have followed, there was substantial disagreement on the scope of the
evaluation, which large parts of the Internet community considered as a mean
for improving through learning by mistakes, considering that the concept of
the at-large was not negotiable.
However, the problem, IMHO, lies now on the fact that, while the initial
at-large election has been an overwhelming success, beyond the more
optimistic (or pessimistic?!?) expectations, the participation to the
current phase does not reach even a fraction of the numbers involved in the
election.
You might remember that at an ICANN meeting (I think it was Yokohama, but I
may be wrong) I raised the issue of what to do after the election with the
at-large members, and the need to keep the momentum going, avoiding
forgetting about the electorate until time for new elections. This is
unfortunately exactly what happened.
Learning from past mistakes, I would therefore suggest that our effort be
directed this time not only towards the mechanism of electing another set of
Directors, but mainly towards building a permanent structure to coordinate
users input in the process. Otherwise we will spend a lot of energies to go
through a new round of election, but the situation will not substantially
change, because the new At-Large Directors would not have any means to
convey the users expectations and needs to the Board, and will therefore act
in isolation from the body that elected them.
Regards
Roberto
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|