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

["Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@medea.wz-berlin.de>]

> 
> > > -  access to the @large people in being able to mail them on an
> > >     European and national basis,

I am not sure I agree on this one. There is a privacy issue involved. The 
members havn't been asked for permisson to give third parties access to their 
data. 

> >Agree, but there also has to be some structure there
> >(simply put: what do we want the @large people to do?
> >Subscribe to a mailing list? Organize regional fora?)
> 
> I think this may come afterward. What we should immediatly ask
> is the possibilibty to address/know the people at least one mail.



> 
> > > -  election of the 4 other @large Directors on a worldwide basis
> > >     in the shortest delays.
> >Do you mean by worldwide basis that there shall be no
> >electoral regions?
> 
> There are 4 seats and 5 areas. I am afraid ICANN takes advantage
> of that very strange repartition to delay the election of the @large
> remaining Directors. So a worldwide constituency would be the
> solution, but ot could be said that one area may not have two
> directors elected. This would probably mean two directors for
> each region except Africa. 

I'd say it's not a good idea to explicitly exclude one region. Why not settling 
for a global election of the next 4 directors?

If every candidate commits to make
> by laws to be changed for Mike Roberts's or Louis Touton seats
> being alocated to @large this would only be a short delay for
> Africa.

We can't expect that. Just look at the other 3 ALM board members :-)
> 
> >   -  links on the ICANN site to the @large regional and national sites
> >Agree.
> 
> 
> 
> > > -  no formal organization of the @large constituencies, each national
> > >     regional, specialized group creating its own solutions.

What a wonderful idea! 

> >Then we have to think up a way how these groups interact;

Exactly. And then we have to find out if they can be considered to be 
representative. And if these specialized groups happen to split up, we also 
have to come up with a way to reflect the opinions of both. And finally, we 
have to invend new mechanisms of consensus-building to ensure that we 
don't exclude or neglect anyone. 
Sorry, but if we want to succeed at all, (European) ALM has to find 
democratic ways of aggregating the users' will, not of differentiating it. 


jeanette

> >what shall be the relation e.g. between the European and
> >the UK or Scottish group? Shall they make decisions or
> >shall they send input to the Board?
> 
> The way I understand the things is that the @large does not take
> any decision but votes for Directors and is polled. Hence the importance
> of the polling system. However local matters or propositions may be
> habdled by regional, national, local, themaitic chapters/ML. I think these
> chapters (like this list) should be free of controlling their destiny.
> 
> > > -  designation in the ICANN of an @large secretary to help the @large
> > >     Members in relating with the ICANN. Netiquette addition: everyone
> > >     must be fair and polite with this secretariat and *never* flame it. But
> > >     this secretariat must never try to impose anything on any Member. Any
> > >     attempt will result with the information of the @large directors.
> >I agree that something like that seems to be necessary.
> >Maybe there is something to learn from the DNSO plans
> >for an Intake Committee?
> 
> Yes. But I think we should tal=ke advantage from the fact that today
> someone has been assigned the job. This means no screen (like the
> NC) between @large and the staff and the BoD.
> 
> > > -  the @large constituency should be permanently polled about the
> > >     ICANN orientations for rough consensus based actions. This
> > >     should result in a polling program being maintained by the ICANN.
> > >     Any question being seconded by 100 Members should be documented
> > >     and listed there. This polling should be permanent: people should be
> > >     able to change their vote.
> 
> I think this is the most important. So we may be heard and the press
> may permanently know what the users think.
> 
> > > -  the PIN system should be totally reset. Every @large member should
> > >     be given the opportunity to confirm his desire to participate and to
> > >     update his address. PINs should be mailed the same way as NSI DN bills
> > >     (it works very nicely). The polling system would be a permanent check of
> > >     the way the PIN system works.
> >So, if I get it right, anyone can join at any time?
> 
> Yes. And leave. Membership should be renewed (asked for ) every year.
> (So not to many deceased are ekected :-) ! ).
> 
> >And, as I don't get billed directly by NSI, how do they
> >send out their bills? How does it check against signing
> >up several times?
> 
> What I mean is the NSI arrangement makes every enveloppe they
> send to be recieved (I had hundreds when I worked with them). This
> is probablt also cheap. I suppose it would be very easy for the ICANN
> to add 30.000 envelopes to the NSI's which probably send 50.000 a day.
> 
> > > I suggest you keep adding your suggestions. Then we could set up
> > > priorities.
> >
> > > NB: this *only* concerns @large setup issues. Not what the @large
> > > Members may think of other topics.
> >Yes, I think it is a very good idea to separate the setup
> >from the issues!
> 
> Agreed !!!  Subhash Gupta had an interesting point which is
> "who are ythe @large?".
> 
> I do not know if this is the time to discuss it.
> 
> However it rises the pratical question of organizing, paying and chairing
> the @large meeting (I understand that ICANN's account unit is the .10 of TAF, ie
> the TLD Application Fee, so increments of $ 5.000)? This obviously also rises
> the question of the money and budget.
> 
> This should be urgently discussed with Andy and Karl because any external
> help we may get might limitate our future autonomy?  One thing we could
> do is to develop your site and get sponsors for the site.
> 
> All the best.
> Jefsey
> 
>