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

[Hans Klein <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>]

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?  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
>