Fw: [ICANN-EU] Horizontal organization

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.medienstadt@okay.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.medienstadt@okay.net>
To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Horizontal organization


Roberto

The ALM Council idea came in in Santiago when we had this problem with this
membership clause in Californian Non-for Profit organisationas Law. Already
 at this time some members and advisers of the MAC (and the planned MAC II)
had the idea, the broaden the ALM Council concept. The ciritical point at
this stage was not only direct vs. indirect elections. There were a number
of other problems, inter alia
 a. the number of members in the council (the proposal was 18 members) and
 b. the functions of the council (only to elect the directors or something
else).

 My proposal later in LA was to broaden the council concept, to have more
 members and more functions (to make it also more consistent with the three
SOs). This became irrelevant after the Cairo discussion when CDT and Common
Cause (with good but also counterproductive arguments) opened the door for a
general reconsideration of the ALM concept.

 Yokohama has produced an interim compromise and, as you will remember, the
planned study, which will start after Marina del Rey, has no pre-formulated
objective. Everything is possible, a right moment for constructive ideas and
 proposals. Before you discuss elections, there is a need to clarify the
role
of ALM.

 My personal view is that if you keep the balance (9:9:1) in the Board and
 accept the ALM idea, that it makes sense to have a SO also for ALM and to
 have an ALM-Council (like the NC, the AC, and the PC). If you have such a
 council you have to clarify what the functions, task etc. of such a council
should and could be. One function could be an advisory one, that means to
give (non-binding) recommendations to the Board on issues of user`s interest
(similar to the GAC).  In my opinion an ALM Ccuncil should have more than 18
members. The figure I proposed was 200 (150 elected within the five
regions/in each region 30) and 50 elected in global elections.

But this are still very vague and early ideas. And there is no idea who
would be able to finance such a structure, the elections etc. Should it be
financed by the members? There was a clear NO to membership fees in the MAC,
but if you produce costs, somebody has to pay the bill. If you start to
collect membership fees how fast the number of members would go down? What
would be the right membership fee? If you collect 10 USD than only the
technical procedure of collecting the money costs you 7 USD or so. If you
ask  for 100 USD annual fee people will ask why I should pay for electing
once a year  a number of council members and board directors?

Good stuff for discussion. Have a nice weekend

 wolfgang


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>
> To: <vb@vitaminic.net>; <icann-europe@fitug.de>
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 8:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Horizontal organization
>
>
> > One thing I would like to add about organization.
> > The initial plan of ICANN, as presented in Cairo, was for an "AtLarge
> > Council", elected by the AtLarge Membership. What was bad in that plan
was
> > the fact that the election of the AtLarge Directors was performed by the
> > AtLarge Council, therefore not with "direct vote" by the Members.
> > BTW, this is similar to the structure of the Supporting Organizations.
> >
> > The idea was much opposed, and consequently direct election was
> introduces.
> > But the concept of an AtLarge Council in itself could not be bad.
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto Gaetano
> > (still the same as before, but with a different email - sorry for the
> > confusion)
> >
> >
> > >From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>
> > >To: icann-europe@fitug.de
> > >Subject: [ICANN-EU] Horizontal organization
> > >Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:50:25 +0200
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >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).
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >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 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
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >
>