Re: [ICANN-EU] LA @large meeting preparation - Action Points List

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Thomas and Jeannette,
I take advantage from Jeannette's comment over Thomas to discuss
you inputs.

General remarks.

This list is a platform of stand alone priorities before a meeting:

  - they may or may not match existing plan of ICANN or others.

-  they are obviously bases for discussions, not solutions. If you
    start a negotiation or a lobbying in defending what you expect to
    obtain, you will get nothing. You need a direction not a target.

As explained, they are offered to european, so people may share
the orientations while adapting meetings, circumstances; opportunities.

At 20:45 16/10/00, you wrote:
> > > Point 2.  Election of the 4 pending ALDs by a worldwide unique
> > >               constituency, ASAP. One Director maximum per region.
>
>Excuse me, but I disagree with the "one director max. per region" rule. 
>Either
>we go for a global election and accept the voters' decision with all the
>shortcomings implied or we reject such a model for its lack of
>representativeness. In the latter case, I'd question the kind of restrictions
>imposed on the voters' will. As you surely know, there won't be any woman on
>ICANN's board after the ALM directors are seated. Unlike the representation
>of Africa, that of women will be zero! I find this at least as disturbing 
>as a
>regional imbalance. Hence, I wouldn't support any form of region-based
>restrictions.
>Just for clarification: it goes without saying that this is not about me. 
>It's rather
>unlikely anyway that I'd run again for a board's seat anytime soon.
>jeanette

Jeannette, please do not fall into the "democratic" trap of 17000 Germans,
3000 French and 24000 Japanese. What is needed is the ICANN to stick
by the White Book. We need to get them to act in a non biased way. The
quota solution respects the existing GAC agreement and gives chances
to you or to another Andy and Barabarra to be elected. Otherwise we will
have NEC and Sony elected instead. If you really want to be democratic,
plase fight for the 1 billions of Indian just to be rememebred as from planet
earth (no area, no nominated). Ask Subhash what he thinks about this.

Aslo, I do not understand your remark about women. Do you make any
difference/discrimination between men and women? I am sorry, but I don't.

> > Have you checked whether there are any plans on this at ICANN?

About electing the 4 ALDs? Yes thay have to do it (White Paper) and they
question it. Or do you have something eles in mind?

> > > Point 3.  The ICANN @large site should introduce and link every
> > >             self-constituted @large site and MLs overthe
> > >             world.
> >
> > Frankly, I wouldn't expect this to happen any time soon.  However, I
> > do believe that the directors may now lend their legitimacy to
> > "supporting fora", and could possibly be helpful by pressuring ICANN
> > officials on this topic.

OK. Your appreciation. Will that prevent you to ask it to fall back on
a forum agreement they do not want to provide you today?

> > > Point 6.  A permanent polling system of the @large Members will
> > >            be installed. Any group will be allowed to use it
> > >            at will.
> > This will open up the way for Denial of Service Attacks against a
> > voting infrastructure.  In particular, the few At Large members
> > which can be expected to participate will at some point get bored,
> > and stop voting.

I do not understand. Don't you confuse a voting and a polling system?

> > >            This system will accept questions from groups and
> > >            permit group members to vote yes/no/veto
> > >            documenting their veto position. It will be
> > >            permitted to change questions and votes to progress
> > >            towards consensus.
> >
> > Eh?  You mean, it will be possible to submit new questions.
> > "Changing questions" while a vote is in progress would make the
> > entire thing unusable.

idem.

> > >              The groups will be able to use this for internal
> > >           decisions or elections as well as for progressively
> > >           escalating propositions towards a general consensus.
> > >           This is an RFC like process extended to a worldwide
> > >           democratic approach.
> >
> > Provided the membership is representative.  We had this discussion
> > before: Just counting votes will lead to distorted results unless
> > you get a large part of the "public" involved.  We shouldn't be
> > overly optimistic about that involvement; thus, At Large
> > organizations will most likely be forced into a model which is
> > mostly about documenting arguments, and possibly dissent.

This is active democracy (democarcy among competent activists
or stakeholders). Another formula is "one need one vote". The target
is not governance, the target is good network operation and user
needs and demands fullfilement. Or am I wrong?

> > > Point 8.  The @large constituency needs a budget.
> > ... paid for by whom?  You are certainly right that an at large
> > constituency based on individuals' commitment and free time will not
> > work properly.

This is a pending question. I give my reponse below. It is just my
reponse, something like the german Church tax?

> > >               No clear action point has been reached on this.
> > >            Gupta, Vottorio have discussed it. The point has
> > >            been risen by others. One suggestion is to have
> > >            them self-organizing and each PIN holder to
> > >            designate the chapter he joins. The chapters would
> > >            have a budget from the ICANN on this basis, or
> > >            could get their own sponsors as per common
> > >            selection criteria.


> > > Point 9.  The @large assembly in LA needs a chair
> > This can - most likely - be left to those who organize the meeting.
> > They have some natural right to chair it.

Just a minute. We are the @large. Let imagine that in a country
the Army takes the power and then organizes free elections. Would
you accept the Army to Chair the Parliament meetings. I doub it.

Actually the ones who organized it in making the @large concept
to be accepted people like Karl Auerbach. the NomCom attitude
shows that we have some divergng lines. You see going to MDR
for the fun is OK, but it costs time and money. I would not like to
spend them too much against my interets.

This being said, I must take you input into account: do you
know who he is the organizer?

Jefsey