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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Jeannette,
If we want to quickly reach a consensus to have clear positions
next month in LA, we have not to dispute the points we agree upon
(I never though about that possibility in defining a consensus as
"when all the agreeing parties disagree" :-) ).
I am just teasing.

At 06:08 14/10/00, you wrote:
> > > > -  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.

1)  This is not what I said. I said we could send a mail at least 4 times a 
year
      through the ICANN.
2)  we are not third party, we are he @large organization they entered !!!
      We are talking here about decisions taken by ICANN @large meeting
      in MDR.

> > >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.

As you see I say one mail. Not big. We should also know them. Seems
minimum.  "We" being obviously something to discus. My feeeling is we
should have an ICANN staff person we will deal with about data base,
local informaton, etc...  European chapter/Director should have access to
the European list; national mailing lists having a list or  mail access to the
@large Members etc... Or the existing mailing lists would be transfered
into ICANN MLs (aslong as there is no user loss, no power control
from the ICANN and current management preservation it is OK with
me. Out lists are named icann-xxx. I dont care about the machine).

> > > > -  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 it 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?

This is exactly what I propose :-)
I just look into the figures to guess that the African/LAC candidates
will get the lowest number of votes.

> > 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 :-)

This is not a matter of dispute, but harmony. The basic idea is that
the majority of Directors is not @large: 10 to 9 today. If you consider
that Mike Roberts and Louis Touton are hired, this actually means
2+8+9. If the next President is not a Member there is one seat more
(the President being de facto the most important person). This permits
to have 1+9+10 knowing that most of the 10 are Establishment
oriented. Another solution is to use the traditional number of 21 seats.

This is not however an important point. Butit can be used against us
to delay the 4 ALD election.

> > >   -  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.

IMHO the solution is quite simple, yetto be developped. It is to
have a "consensus polling boot" program. I see this a permanent
vote system :

-  a question is asked which may be tuned
-  people may respond and change their mind
-  there is mailing list attached to the question
-  the target is to increase the number of yes and decrease the number
    of no in taking into account Members comments
-  questions can be distributed by themes and areas Once they got
    the approval of their areas/theme they may escalate to a broader
    scope until they are general and worldwide. This is actually the
    normal process of an RFC.

Jefsey