Re: [ICANN-EU] Bylaws Version 0.2

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

to all.
I think we are on a wrong track about voting procedures in copying
the DNSO or others, or in the proper trap. We will discuss it endless
and will never be happy with it until we accept that :

-  AFAIK we do not claim being the european @large body
-  IMHO we have two different and quite opposed problems to solve

These to problems are:

-  ML ownership management. Thomas Roessler as created the list.

    a) He made it a reasonable sucess, let him continue. If people
        become hunappy with his management they will vote with their
        feet and go away.

    b) in common interest if this ML develops some assistance and
        external ideas may become of interest and a way to force
        Thomas if everyone agrees. I think this may be achieved by
        an unformal board of partners (one per participating lists, site
        manager and people really wanting to contribute/help). If they
        want a voting mechanism this is their problem.

-  Consensus research

    a) a consensus again is easy to check : you send the question
        "has someone a veto or an objection to: ......". You do it as
       many time as there is no more veto (rought consensus) or
       objection (true consensus). Objections/veto must come from
       identified persons otherwise lobbyist would rule the world as
       at ICANN.

    b) polls. What actually you consider is polling (giving the European
        Director an advice: the guy will be grown enough to make his
        mind - you do not command him - if there are 30% for, 35 %
        against and 30% for another approach of the problem.

        NB. That polling mecanisme may be used by the ML owner
        to get feed back from Members

I note that these two processus are not Member number dependant
if consensus enquiries are made after polls permitting to determine
the different objections.

I hope this may help.
Jefsey


At 10:28 05/10/00, you wrote:
>"Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@medea.wz-berlin.de> writes:
> > Gut feeling tells me, we'll have to change those rules endless times
> > anyhow, why then getting into this tiring business now?
>
>An idea would be: for it to be less tiring later.  If we learn how to
>create and change the voting procedure now (with a growth say 170 to
>340 people), we will be much better prepared to face growth, say, from
>10.000 expected to 150.000 virtual down to 75.000 real members.
>
>...back lurking.
>
>Alex