RE: [atlarge-discuss] ALAC teleconference August 9, 2002 Notes

["Judith Oppenheimer" <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>]

Sotiris, I'm unclear here:  what was your position (given you are ID'ed
below as repping icannatlarge.com)?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Judith Oppenheimer
http://JudithOppenheimer.com
http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
http://WhoSells800.com
212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:44 AM
> To: discuss
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] ALAC teleconference August 9, 2002 Notes
>
>
> All,
>
> Here are the notes from the ALAC teleconference last
> Friday.  Please forgive my tardiness in presentingthis
> summary, but life has a way of intruding...
>
> Nota Bene: I have uploaded Vittorio's PowerPoint Summary
> presentation at:
> http://www.worldatlarge.org/atlargestructuresummary.ppt
> (you will need to view this summary to follow the notes
> below).
>
> Participants of Teleconference:
>
> - Alexander Svensson, svensson@icannchannel.de (Manager,
> IcannChannel.de, and DNSO General Assembly Alternate
> Chair) (recommended an ALAC structure -- see
> http://www.alac.info/)
> - Denise Michel, coordinator@at-alrge.org (ALOC
> coordinator)
> - Esther Dyson, edyson@edventure.com (ALSC - ICANN
> At-Large Study Committee,
> www.atlargestudy.org)
> - Edmundo Valenti, emv@southtech.com.ar (Internet Society
> Argentina Chapter,
> www.isoc.org.ar)
> - Gabriel Pi&rgr;eiro, legales@derecho.org.ar
> (LatinoamerICANN, www.latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar)
> - Izumi Aizu, izumi@anr.org (NAIS - NGO and Academic ICANN
> Study; www.naisproject.org)
> - N&idigr;ria de la Fuente Teixid&sgr;, ateneas@retemail.es (STEC -
> Sistemas T&igr;cnicos
> de Ense&rgr;anza Consultores, www.stec.info)
> - Sotiris Sotiropoulos, sotiris@hermesnetwork.com
> (Icannatlarge.com,
> www.icannatlarge.com)
> - Vittorio Bertola, vb@vitaminic.net (ISOC Italy,
> www.isoc.it)
>
>
> Notes:
>
> Denise Michel invited A. Svennson to participate as we
> were to be discussing his plan as well. Vittorio had sent
> the group a PowerPoint presentation outlining four
> possible atlarge structure schemas.  Denise asked VB to
> outline his four structures.  He started by discussing
> schema number 1 (see PowerPoint presentation) for the ALOC
> schema which was similar to what is ?currently? in place
> i.e. a variable sized Committee of appointed/elected
> representatives of accredited at-large structures who
> would potentially vote/select the NomCom and/or BoD
> Member(s).  He mentioned that we would need to examine
> criteria for accrediting at-large structures. VB pointed
> out that a variable sized comittee, which could eventually
> get out of control due to sheer unwieldy size was an
> undesirable possibility. He went on to the delegation of
> seats on such a variable sized committee that could be
> allotted according to group size, type etc., or simply one
> seat on the committee per accredited structure.  Again,
> this committee (and not a general electorate) would elect
> the BoD member(s) and/or the NomCom seats allotted for an
> ALAC.  NOTE: VB did state that in all the current schemas
> the Advisory Committee selects/elects the BoD member(s)
> and/or the NomCom seats allotted and he emphasized that he
> could envision no other way to work it out.  Also, he
> mentioned that there was no method established for how an
> ALAC would take its decisions. I asked him about the
> possibility for elections among the membership(s) of the
> ALOC structures, and VB responded that he was of the
> opnion that the ALOC would be eliminated from the
> structure entirely.  At this point, he and Esther Dyson
> made it clear that either way the current ALOC is a
> temporary thing soon to be substituted entirely by the
> ALAC.  Denise summarized this first schema as the variable
> sized non-election approach, and she did mention that this
> creates a self-selecting committee that may or may not be
> a problem for some.  I commented on the insular nature of
> such a self-selecting committee when she asked for
> objections.  No other comments were forthcoming on this
> point.  Edmundo chimed in and requested that we allow
> Vittorio to continue explaining all the models he had
> summarized in his presentation.
>
> VB continued on to Schema 2 (VB?s own plan), where the
> At-Large Structures would appoint a part of the Committee.
> But he said (and I was unclear as to his meaning but
> included it exactly) ?that there would also be a general
> membership that would hold elections among the membership
> to elect another part of the committee?.  He also said
> that one fundamental point <we> needed to address the
> question of election: to have them or not.  Whether to
> have individual members vote for some, all, or none of the
> members of the Committee etc.  His proposal/approach was
> to find a compromise between he ?appointed? structures and
> ?elective? structures.  His proposal was for a fixed size
> Committee with a mechanism to fill in the positions i.e.
> half the seats appointed and the other half elected or
> some such variant.  In the case where there were a
> surfeit/surplus of at-large structures, that a random
> selection process of some kind could even be instituted on
> a rotating basis to select which structures get a seat on
> the Committee for any given period of time (among other
> criteria).  E Dyson stressed that the overriding criterion
> on the size of the Committee was actual participation in
> meetings and work production and that this would serve to
> limit the size of the Committee, but that this also raised
> the issue of quorum being proportionate to the number of
> people who attend/participate rather than the total.  She
> suggested that if there were (in theory) a Committee
> composed of reps from all the AL structures, and then an
> executive committee, which did all the actual work and
> included some geographical/regional diversity that a good
> result could be obtained. She went on to say that she was
> unsure which model such a schema would fit, but that it
> could probably fit into several.  Denise asked VB to
> clarify if (still in his Schema 2) individual users would
> be electing half of the Advisory Committee and whether the
> other half would be appointed by a membership organization
> similar to the ALOC, a membership organization?  VB
> affirmed that the appointed half is chosen/nominated (in
> an undetermined manner, perhaps by random or other means)
> from among some membership of accredited structures.  VB
> stated that since the actual ICANN membership option is
> not feasible at the moment, there would still have to be
> membership in some service organization which would
> provide for the keeping the member rolls, arranging
> elections, executive tasks etc. (the Panel in the ALMO box
> in the PowerPoint presentation).  VB said that the main
> element of his plan was that ICANN would delegate the
> maintenance of the membership roll and the job of
> elections to another organization that would be created
> for this purpose, effectively the ALMO panel (which would
> be elected by the ALMO members i.e. individuals who met
> unspecified identity verification qualifications).  Denise
> Michel asked VB to clarify further how the at-large
> structures would select/elect their representatives on the
> Advisory Committee.  Vittorio said that there were many
> options that could be considered that have yet to be
> ironed out and Denise said that it would be best not to
> get into too many details in the interest of moving on
> with the discussion.
>
> Alexander Svennson was then called upon to deliver the
> presentation of the third schema (his own).  AS?s plan
> agreed with VB?s plan on a fixed size Committee for fear
> of becoming unwieldy.  AS envisions regional groups that
> appoint seats to a user council voting body; his original
> idea was 1 vote for structures that have up to 500
> members, 2 votes for up to 5000, and anything more than
> that gets 3 votes, and then all of the reps in the
> resulting user council vote for the members of the fixed
> size ALAC that is composed of 2 ALAC members per region
> (the original ICANN 5 regions appear to be the standard
> here). This committee goes on to select/appoint the NomCom
> and BoD member(s). I raised concerns regarding the
> verification of the numbers of members claimed by at-large
> structures and E. Dyson stated that if elections were to
> be held, verification mechanisms would be looked into.
> Denise Michel asked about criteria for recognizing an
> At-large structure in this schema.  AS responded that the
> start up phase would require that some group would have to
> decide for the first elections, but given that objective
> criteria could thus be established, an ALAC could
> recognize (rather than evaluate) the fulfilment of
> criteria for any new applicant organization/structure(s).
> Izumi Aizu characterized this ?recognition? as a kind of
> accreditation.  Denise thought that the ?accreditation
> approach? was valid for Schema 1 and 3 respectively.  AS
> then raised the point of ICANN funding for the travel of a
> fixed size ALAC to the ICANN meetings to enable
> participation for non-commercial reps etc.  Denise Michel
> asked AS if he went into the issue of how the ALAC would
> (s)elect the NomCom and/or BoD members, and from where the
> candidates would be drawn.  AS did not have an answer.
>
> Edmundo asked that we move on to the discussion of schema
> 4, the regional at-large organization approach, basically
> comprised of two persons per 5 ICANN voting at-large
> regional structures.  He and Gabriel Pipeiro expressed an
> interest in a self-organizing regional structure approach,
> which stressed the involvement of users throughout the
> world.  I understood that their main concern was that
> developed countries would end up with a large number of
> accredited at-large structures whereas poorer countries
> would not have such a capacity.  Therefore, they preferred
> schema 4 to the preceding.  Izumi Aizu came forward in
> favour of the regional approach, but he also stated that
> he saw the merits in having at-large structures that do
> not satisfy regional criteria and may still select members
> of the ALAC.  He characterized his approach as a
> combination of schemas 2 and 4.  IA?s idea was that half
> the ALAC is selected from the regional structures and the
> other half via the various remaining accredited at-large
> structures (non-regional, perhaps issue-based orgs).
> Alexander Svennson asked about how the differentiation
> would be made between regional and issue based orgs.
> Izumi responded that he wished to foster a situation which
> preserved diversity and that the strictly regional
> approach may be a limitation and/or obstacle to diversity
> of viewpoints.
>
> Esther Dyson said that the ALAC need not go into
> technicalities at this time, but merely to submit a
> general outline and/or proposal to the ERC which has a
> basis in current practicalities and defers election
> matters to a later point once a time-phased approach can
> be settled upon and submitted to the ERC/BoD and
> thereafter approved.  The call ended with a pulse taking
> of opinions on the 4 schemas.  A general consensus on the
> regional approach combined with consideration of
> incorporating non-regional AL structures was evident by
> the end of the call (i.e. a combination of schemas 2 and
> 4).
>
> END
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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