Re: [atlarge-discuss] Last Man Standing

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

I do not see why a panel cannot answer to a scrutiny of a "gac" (here I 
mean geographic rather that governmental) An oversight committee that does 
not have to be involved in day to day activity.
Those working with Latin America and Southeast Asia would welcome such an 
idea, but find the daily bantering out of the scope of our time and 
ability to commit.
This is a very helpful thread and should be pursued, prior to elections.

Thank you to both Danny and Ron for the contributions.

e

> Danny, et al:
> 
>     I am not particularly concerned with the number of panel members,
>     and
> although I would love to see a globally diverse panel I certainly don't
> feel obliged to comply with the flawed ICANN regional representation
> model.  What does concern me is that the panel must have both the
> responsibility and the authority to represent the will of the
> membership.  Without that, their very existence is meaningless.  I
> believe that unless the organization adopts policies that the panel may
> represent as the will of the membership, we are wasting our time and
> will have zero credibility.  Representation will grow as members
> increase their level of participation.
> 
>     The number of panel members should be determined by the work to be
>     done,
> the individuals who have the appropriate skill sets, and who are
> willing to do the work.  I doubt that there is a need at this stage for
> a large panel, but as participation increases, we may well find that
> regional
> representation requires more than the five panel members that you
> suggest. Panel members should be elected in open elections and should
> be free to choose their own leader.  That leader will be the official
> representative of the membership.  The panel should, however, have the
> freedom to appoint any panel member (or other member for that matter)
> to represent the interests of the membership in any given specialized
> arena.
> 
>     In my humble opinion, leadership in this type of organization is
>     not
> telling the membership what policy decisions the panel has made. Nor is
> it participating in every discussion on the list.  Leadership is
> identifying policy issues, presenting them to the membership for
> development, reporting on related developments in other arenas and
> ensuring that the membership participate in the process.  Once a policy
> document has been adopted by the membership it becomes the duty of the
> leadership team to administer it and represent the organizations
> mandate in the global arena.
> 
>     The trick is to be able to develop the policies at the participant
> level.
> 
>     If any one person, or any group of people wish to address a single
> issue, be it something basic like the skill set requirements for a
> panel member nominee, or something more technical like some of the DNS
> issues, they may.  It would simply require a numerically ascending
> issue number in the subject line of an email to the discuss list, and
> all who wish to help develop a proposed policy document for that issue
> would correspond in open forum with the issue number as the thread
> coordinator.  When the members of any such discussion agree on a draft
> policy, they choose one of their correspondents to present it to the
> panel for discussion in open dialog limited to the presenter and a
> panel member.  At any time the presenter may return to the issue
> discussion group to reassess the policy in the light of the panel
> discussion, or leave the draft policy on the table (possibly with one
> or more competing draft policy documents on the same issue) to be
> judged by the entire membership in a vote to adopt the policy as part
> of the organization's mandate.
> 
>     What, you may ask, if an issue falls by the wayside for lack of
> interest?  That my friends will determine who has the right to take up
> the time and energy of the panel members.  For no issue will be
> addressed by the panel until it receives a draft policy arrived at by
> consensus of the issue discussion group.
> 
>     What if the panel, our leadership team, determines that an issue is
>     not
> being addressed? The answer to that is also simple. One or more panel
> members will introduce the issue (possibly with a draft policy
> document), provide it with an issue number, and leave the membership to
> decide who has an interest and is prepared to develop the issue into a
> draft policy document with consensual support.  If there is no public
> response, the panel members are free to present their own draft policy
> document for adoption by public vote.
> 
>     The most important component of this structure is that the
>     membership,
> in all its diversity, is the policy development engine.  If the
> membership fails in its responsibilities, and only if the membership
> fails in its responsibilities, the panel will fulfill its leadership
> role by taking on that function and offering a draft policy for
> membership adoption.  But, panel members will not be required to
> respond to every nuance of every comment made by every participant on
> every issue. Nor will they have to suffer the barbs and sarcasm leveled
> at them for not doing so.
> 
>     Once the duties of the panel are recognized as being limited to
> representing and administering adopted policy, and presenting issues to
> be addressed by the membership, they will be judged by their
> performance in that role, and not by their political views or
> aspirations.  Let's make ourselves responsible for our own policy
> decisions instead of blaming the panel for failing to make everybody
> happy.
> 
>     I suspect that the environment outlined above would encourage more,
>     well
> qualified, nominees from which to choose our leadership panel.
> 
> Sincerely, Ron Sherwood
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <sherwood@islands.vi>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 6:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Last Man Standing
> 
> 
>> Hello Ron,
>>
>> I support the structure that you have proposed, and frankly, I see no
>> harm
> in
>> "limiting the number of panel members to the number of fingers on one
>> hand (with some amputations)".  This group has twice tried an
>> eleven-member
> panel
>> (with disastrous results on each occasion) -- what is to be gained by
>> repeating the same folly yet again?
>>
>> Maybe I just don't "get it", but I don't understand the particular
>> "magic"
> in
>> the number "eleven".  Why wouldn't "five" suffice?  Ideally, one would
> have a
>> representative from each ICANN region in order to satisfy diversity
>> requirements.  However, as we enter into this election, once again
>> there
> has
>> been no consideration given to diversity by those panelists that are
>> orchestrating this election...   One might rightly ask, just how
> legitimate
>> will this group be if it winds up electing the bulk of its panelists
>> primarily from North America?
>>
>> But, I see no real point in obstructing the election process at this
>> late stage, so... let's move to the "Bottom line"...
>>
>> The problem with icannatlarge has been that this particular group has
> failed
>> time after time owing to a lack of "leadership", and owing to the fact
> that
>> some panelists chose to use this organization as a springboard for
>> their
> own
>> ambitions.
>>
>> Those with stellar biographies are not necessarily leaders with any
>> degree
> of
>> talent in either building an organization or in properly articulating
>> a
>set
>> of views.  This has twice been proven.  Who then, should we look for
>> to
> bring
>> this effort to fruition?
>>
>> I can trust those who, like yourself, (and like Joop and Eric) have
>> demonstrated their commitment to the process by taking the time to
>> attend
> and
>> participate in ICANN sessions.  I can trust those who (like Richard
> Henderson
>> and David Farrar) have taken the time to express their views to ICANN
>> management and who advocate in all the relevant fora for the benefit
>> of
> the
>> user interest.
>>
>> Unfortunately, when you conduct a vote and send out ballots to
>> hundreds of folks that haven't followed the discussions, that haven't
>> participated on
> the
>> discussion lists, and most likely aren't even aware that the
>> organization still exists (after all, it hasn't accomplished anything
>> at all in an
> entire
>> year), these people will only see whatever brief candidate statements
>> are presented -- and that's the real problem and the major failure in
>> this
> badly
>> flawed democratic process.
>>
>> This election does not have a timeline that allows for a thorough
>> debate between the parties.  Sadly, it has been arranged as nothing
>> more than
> just
>> another beauty contest that will allow the Last Men Standing to assume
>> positions within the organization.
>>
>> So, I will await the results of this latest initiative with very low
>> expectations.  As I see it, having this needlessly large panel means
>> that
> you
>> will wind up selecting some that are quite capable, and you will
>> select others whose only goal is to augment their resumes with a new
>> entry.  Like before, the lethargy of those with no real desire to
>> serve will hamstring
> the
>> efforts of those that seek to get something accomplished, and
>> eventually those few remaining will, like their predecessors, finally
>> realize that
> it's
>> long past time to turn out the lights.
>>
>> Like the IDNO, I expect that icannatlarge will be yet another failed
> attempt
>> to launch a cyberdemocracy.  If the truth be told, therein lies the
>> problem...
>>
>> Other constituencies accept the fact their raison-d'etre is to provide
>> commentary on DNS issues... this group of participants, on the other
>> hand, seems to think that it's primary function is to establish a
>> democracy in cyberspace (with DNS concerns being so far down on their
>> list of
> priorities
>> that it's barely a blip on their radar).
>>
>> Having watched these antics for over a year, and having watched the
>> same
>set
>> of participants in the earlier IDNO, I can attest to the fact that
>> before long we will find ourselves dealing with yet another glorified
>> pissing contest between long-time adversaries (each hoping to become
>> king of this ever-shrinking sandbox).
>>
>> It was nice meeting you in Rio, and I look forward to a time when we
>> can return to a concerted discussion on matters pertaining to the DNS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de For
> additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de