[ga] Re: [icann-eu] Agenda for ALM meeting in Melbourne

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Jeannette, Hans and als.

IMHO consensus is quite difficult to reach with stakeholders
being involved as at ālarg: each party legitimately defends its
interests.

We must no confuse - as the ICANN does - consensus which
is actually discovering that actually most of us thought the same
thing on a gven topic, and qualified majority which means that
we agree to say the same thing.  In the first case 15 people
may be a good sample of experts to uncover a consensus,
in the second case polling millions of stakeholders is necessary.

I feel that we have first to determine what will be accepted rules
of the @large net-democracy.

I certainly share with you about @large/ccTLDs. Did you look
at the franceālarge document on the study at http://icann-fra.org ?

Jefsey

On 15:48 02/02/01, jeanette@medea.wz-berlin.de said:
>On 2 Feb 2001, at 15:51, Hans Klein wrote:
>
>Hi Hans (who is, funny enough, sitting right opposite of me)
>
> >
> > These are good issues for a meeting in Melbourne.  They are also good
> > topics for the ALM study.
> >
> > We might be able to use the At Large Study process as a framework for our
> > work.  We could write something on the following topics:
> >
> > 1. Decision Mechanisms
> > Does consensus work for the At Large, or do we need elections?
>
>Consensus procedures is one o the topics to be discussed on the
>panel about the At Large Membership at the ICANN Studienkreis
>meeting tomorrow morning.
>
>I could give in Melbourne a presentation of my presentation in
>Zürich plus the controversial comments I will surely get.
>Does that make sense?
>
>jeanette
>
>That is an
> > important question for the At Large.  We could summarize the issues in a
> > report.
> >       Frankly, it might be interesting to try an experiment 
> somewhere.  Maybe
> > different regions could try different mechanisms in some future election.
> >
> > 2. Editorial Board
> > A group could initiate a discussion with the ICANN staff about control of
> > the mailing list.  A brief memo summarizing the issues would be 
> interesting.
> >
> > 3. Funding
> > I am not (yet) optimistic about funding.  But I do have some ideas here:
> > --> maybe ccTLD registries could fund member participation.
> >       Korea has done this, apparently with some success.  As I 
> understand it,
> > KR-NIC needed an active Local Internet Community to head off any attempt of
> > government control.  KR-NIC had a strong incentive to organize users and to
> > subisidize their travel to meetings.  The same conditions might hold in
> > other countries.
> >
> >
> > Does anyone want to get involved?  I am interested in the third topic
> > above, the ALM-LIC-ccTLD relationship.  I would be willing to work with
> > others to prepare something here.
> >
> > Anyone else interested in topics?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 11:44 PM 2/1/01 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > >
> > >At 17:12 31/01/01 -0500, Hans Klein wrote:
> > >>
> > >>The next ICANN meeting is in Melbourne, March 10-13
> > >>  see: http://www.icann.org/melbourne
> > >>
> > >>The Interim Coordinating Committee (ICC) formed in Los Angeles is 
> currently
> > >>working to obtain official ICANN meeting space for an At Large Meeting
> > (ALM).
> > >>
> > >>Right now, subscribers to this list might consider what issues are
> > >>appropriate for an ALM meeting.  We might discuss a possible agenda.
> > >>
> > >>I believe the following items should be on the agenda:
> > >>
> > >>Report from At Large Directors
> > >>==============================
> > >>Newly elected directors can give a brief account of their work to date on
> > >>behalf of the ALM.
> > >>
> > >Yes.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Relationship with Appointed At Large Directors
> > >>==============================================
> > >>Four of the nine AL director seats are occupied by appointees.  Some 
> groups
> > >>have called these individuals "board squatters" and others have noted 
> that
> > >>they are accomplished individuals who contribute a lot to ICANN.  These
> > >>four directors could each give a brief talk about how they understand 
> their
> > >>role on the Board.
> > >>
> > >Yes.
> > >>
> > >>At Large Study
> > >>==============
> > >>The At Large Study has a new director and a new charter.  See:
> > >>   http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr26jan01.htm
> > >>   http://www.icann.org/committees/at-large-study/charter-22jan01.htm
> > >>We could invite the study chair, Carl Bildt, to speak to us.
> > >>
> > >Yes.
> > >
> > >
> > >>Definition of Consensus Procedures
> > >>==================================
> > >>The ALM needs to define consensus procedures, i.e. a set of well-defined
> > >>steps to demonstrate the presence or absence of consensus among ALM on
> > >>issues.  I would like to have Louis Touton or David Johnson speak to us
> > >>about this.  Eventually the ALM will need a working group on this.
> > >>
> > >
> > >This is a tricky one.  Consensus is fine in small groups, where voting
> > >would be unnecessarily polarizing, but among the 100.000 plus @large
> > >members, I feel that the only acceptable way to determine the will of the
> > >members is voting.
> > >Instead of listening to L.Touton it would be better to split up in Working
> > >Groups dedicated to  defining the necessary procedures that would 
> safeguard
> > >an unbiased way of polling the membership. (starting with electing a
> > >Polling Committee and defining its duties)
> > >
> > >>The Members Announcement List
> > >>=============================
> > >>We should discuss the possible formulation of a proposal to create an
> > >>editorial board for the members-announce list currently controlled by 
> ICANN
> > >>staff.  There should be some means by which members can reach each other
> > >>using this list.  This would preserve member privacy while allowing for
> > >>communication.
> > >>
> > >Yes. This editorial Board should also be elected.
> > >
> > >>###
> > >>
> > >>Does this agenda look appropriate?
> > >>Should items be added, changed, deleted?
> > >>
> > >
> > >I would like to add the point of securing travel subsidies to @large
> > >members to be able to attend physical meetings.
> > >An appeal to the Markle Foundation perhaps.
> > >Without broader support, we run the risk that the physical @large will be
> > >mostly those who fall under the Salzburg Seminar subsidies (NCDNHC-members
> > >only).
> > >
> > >
> > >--Joop--
> > >www.idno.org
> > >

--
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