Re: [ICANN-EU] Horizontal organization

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:41:48 +0200, you wrote:

>I'm not sure that the N best-placed people from the current
>pre-election (or from the actual election) are necessarily more
>credible.  What about persons who may have considered running for a
>place on the ballot, but prefered not to do this since they
>considered other candidates to have larger chances?  What about
>those who have stepped back in favor of other candidates?

The latter could be considered, with the number of endorsements they had
when they withdrew. About the former, I'm sure that there are some people
who thought that way, but, having 74 candidates in the list, it seems
difficult to me to conclude that many people decided not to candidate to
reduce crowding :)

>credibility to it.  Closing the "council" _now_ would take quite
>some credibility away.

I don't agree with this, but the important issue is to get this started, be
it open or closed. So let's get the widest possible discussion on this in
the next days, and then let's take the most agreed road.

>Sorry, but this should _absolutely_ _not_ be the job of any closed
>"board".  

I've thought at it more deeply, and it seems to me that there are two
different steps in what we want to do:
1) put together the best possible proposal
2) make this proposal as much credible as possible

Closing the discussion could affect 1) negatively, but would affect 2)
positively. One thing is to go to ICANN and say "Hi, we are a self-nominated
group of At Large members, here is our proposal", and another is to say "Hi,
we are a provenly representative subset of the At Large community, here is
our proposal". Ignoring us in the second case would be more difficult, I
think.

However, I agree that the most open the drafting phase is, the best would be
the resulting proposal. So maybe we should have an open discussion list for
the proposal itself, and then have the advisory council support it. 

>If we really want to create written concepts intended for
>publication, I suggest we should mimic the essentials of the IETF WG
>process, with drafts, and some final, consensus-supported document.

The problem to me is that, in such a big and overlooked matter, you have to
prove your consensus, and prove that it is significant - which means, not
just the consensus of you and a couple of friends, but the consensus of the
community. Keep in mind that you cannot communicate with the community - you
don't even know who they are. The only way we have to be in touch with them,
by now, is through this election process.
-- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <vb@vitaminic.net>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology