[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] Horizontal organization
I enter into the discussion that is going on after this initial
proposal of Vittorio Bertola;
>This is my draft proposal about "horizontal organization", a term with
>which I indicate a way through which the regional At Large Director
>could inform and discuss his positions with all At Large members, to
>get their thoughts and consensus. It seems to me that many of us agree
>on the opportunity of such an instrument, which I find fundamental to
>make the At Large concept successful, so I'd like to discuss and get
>to some practical action in a short time.
I recall that, after long discussions, in the meeting of ICANN in
Santiago last year, the at large membership was configured as an
organization similar to the other Supporting Organizations; this was
envisaging the constitution of an at large membership council as the
reference structure of the at large directors. If you have a look at
the recent Yokohama ICANN minutes, no mention at all is made about
that council. Instead, a commission will be set up to study the
evolution of the at large membership. Here I quote the part of the
minutes which is referring to that commission:
*******************************
Section 5. Study of "At Large" Membership
Beginning immediately following the conclusion of the Annual Meeting
of the Corporation in 2000, the Corporation shall initiate a
comprehensive study of the concept, structure and processes relating
to an "At Large" membership for the Corporation. The study shall be
structured so as to allow and encourage the
participation of organizations worldwide, and shall be a "clean
sheet" study -- meaning that previous decisions and conclusions
regarding an "At Large" membership will be informative but not
determinative, and that the study will start with no preconceptions
as to a preferred outcome. The study shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to, the following issues, taking into account
the limited technical and administrative responsibilities of ICANN:
Whether the ICANN Board should include "At Large" Directors;
If so, how many such Directors there should be;
How any such "At Large" Directors should be selected, including
consideration of at least the following options: selection by an "At
Large" membership; appointment by the existing Board; selection or
appointment by some other entity or entities; and any combination of
those options;
If selection by an "At Large" membership is to be used, the
processes and procedures by which that selection will take place; and
What the appropriate structure, role and functions of an "At Large"
membership should be.
The Board shall establish, by the Annual Meeting in 2000, a process
and structure for the study that will enable it to meet the following
deadlines:
a. The results of the study should be presented to the Board no
later than the second quarterly meeting of the Corporation in 2001;
b. The Board shall review the study, and propose for public
comment whatever actions it deems appropriate as a result of the
study, on a schedule that would permit the Board to take final action
on the study no later than the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in
2001; and
c. Any actions taken by the Board as a result of the study that
require the selection of any "At Large" Directors should be
implemented on a schedule that will allow any new "At Large"
Directors to be seated no later than the conclusion of the Annual
Meeting of the Corporation in 2002.
************************************
From the above, it appears that the future of the at large membership
of ICANN is still under discussion, including the possibility of not
repeating the election of the at large directors; the eventual
election of the remaining four at large directors will take place in
2002 and not in 2001 as previously stated. Any organization of the at
large members will then have to spring of from a spontaneous movement
and will not presumably be supported by ICANN. The real point will
be, after the election procedure will be completed in the middle of
next October, to get from ICANN the mailing lists of the registred at
large members and to find an agreement how to use them. I think that
it is interest of the present at large members, which established a
virtual community after a succesfull outreach campaign, to continue
to represent the voice of the community. The organizational problems
are not trivial though; consider for example the willingness of more
potential at large members to join; who will take care of that ? with
which funds ? Is the actual at large membership in the intention of
ICANN going to be disbanded or kept dormant after the coming
elections ?
>Since it does not seem feasible to me to have a mailing list with
>35'000 subscribers, I guess that the European community should be
>broken down into local communities, where "local" can be conceived in
>a variety of meaning: by country, by type (business, no-profit,
>underground...), by job, by age... However, the most natural way to
>proceed seems to me to be by nation, for one simple reason: the
>language. Everyone feels more comfortable with his own mother tongue,
>and not everyone speaks English.
I agree with that after seeing also contrary opinions; first about
numbers: today only 30% of the initially registered at large members
in Europe verified their membership; as far as I know, a number of
the initial registrants still have to receive their PIN and so it may
foreseen that the present about 15K verified members in Europe will
become 20K or 25K; they are still too many to be addressed as a
unique block. If we look at the model of ISOC, we see that today
there is a flourishing of geographically defined chapters; in my
opinion the at large members of a local community (not necessarily a
country; take for example Vallonia or Catalugna) could find a useful
sinergy with the existing ISOC chapters; then, it will be important
that the local chapters interact together and also with the other
regions in the world. In ISOC this coordination (quite loose in any
case) is done centrally and the chapters established a chapter
council which is providing inputs to the Board of Trustees of ISOC.
Sorry for bothering you with another organization but I think that
ICANN and ISOC have to be sinergic in the interest of the Internet
community.
>However, we do not need to start from zero. There are a number of
>independent sites run by activists. Many of them already have forums
>or mailing lists. We should establish a network of independent At
>Large sites that diffuse information and gather ideas through the
>community, and try to promote participation in these sites and in
>their forums (maybe with some underlying commitments by the site owner
>ensuring free participation and fair information).
Sensitization and providing updated information in such a rapidly
changing environment will be essential; I agree to rely on activists
but perhaps we should look at some more structured organization;
>The European coordination could then be delegated to an intermediate
>level, which could well be this mailing list. However, I am wondering
>whether we'd need to give some formal structure to this. I think that
>ICANN and the At Large concept would be strengthened if there was some
>formal and credible way of gathering consensus among At Large members,
>and of proofing that the positions that the European At Large Director
>will take, whoever he will be, are shared by a majority of the At
>Large community in Europe. A mailing list could do, but there should
>be some way of keeping reasonable the number of its subscribers, so
>that they don't get overwhelmed by the amount of messages, and that
>polite and profitable discussions can take place. And the participants
>should somewhat proof that they represent something more than
>themselves alone.
I am convinced that the committee established by ICANN post elections
will certainly listen to our inputs;
>But how can we select this intermediate level of representatives? IMHO
>there's a very simple and effective way: let's say that the N
>candidates with the highest number of endorsements, with a reasonably
>high value of N (i.e. 25), can be considered representative enough to
>participate in this middle level - or else, all candidates that get at
>least X endorsements in this phase, with a low value of X (i.e.
>10).[1] For candidates who withdraw formally, the number of
>endorsements at the withdrawal moment will count. I think that this
>would be a good balance between having an open and wide participation
>in this level and granting that the consensus that will be reached
>here can credibly represent the consensus of the whole community.
>
>However, another possibility is simply keeping this list open or open
>to all candidates, but I fear that its representativeness could then
>be easily attacked.
>
>Comments? Ideas?
I have no suggestions in this point in time rather then continuing
this useful discussion; at a certain point someone should recap and
prepare a proposal to be discussed and then sent to ICANN; I am
referring to setting up a form of a chapter council. For questions
concerning the on going election procedure, we should continue to
interact as often as needed with ICANN's staff, as we are already
doing.
Stefano Trumpy
> I think that many here share the feeling that some
>higher degree of organization in the community is necessary, so I hope
>that we can find consensus and act on this in a short time. I'd also
>like to hear from the 4-5 candidates that really have chances to get
>to the ballot whether they would agree at least to discuss, if not to
>submit, their decisions with such a structure.
>
>
>[1] I've done a quick check with this morning numbers:
>
>Endorsements # of candidates
>100 or more 3
>50-99 1
>10-49 7
>5-9 7
>2-4 19
>0-1 37
>------------------
>TOTAL 74
>
>Guess that the Gauss curve is narrowing...
>
>--
>.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
>Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net> Ph. +39 011 23381220
>Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology
****************************************************************************
Stefano Trumpy
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)
Istituto per le Applicazioni Telematiche (IAT)
Via V.Alfieri, 1
56010 Ghezzano (Pisa) Italy
phone: +39 050 3152 112 (or 634) mobile: +39 335 373423 fax: +39 050 3152113
e-mail: Stefano.Trumpy@iat.cnr.it http://www.iat.cnr.it
****************************************************************************