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

[jeanette@medea.wz-berlin.de]

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
> >