Re: [ICANN-EU] At Large Members Meeting (Los Angeles, Nov. 12)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Vittorio,
> The discussion about @large issues are on this list. Andy's list
> is to discuss matters outside or wider than the @large scope (the
> @wide scope). So your points are well addressed here and your
> mail is very well done.
>
> I suggest that we do not confuse the issue and keep the list of
> action points for LA as clean as possible. I will therefore keep adding
> to the current list "LA @large meeting preparation" the action points
> discussed in posts like yours, as I did with Jeannette's and Gupta's.
> And will update it regularly.

  Good idea here.

>
>
> I discuss your points here in that spirit, the current responses
> showing that:
>
> -   we want to stick to points really concerning the @large
>      woldwide organization (to build the parliament house and to
>      convey all the people before starting debating and voting there)

  How do we know that the @large EU members want a "Parliament
House"?  Maybe and @Large congress would be better?

>
>
> -   we do not want to be imposed anything by the ICANN and
>      certainly not Uniform Sleeping Rules and Structures.

  Also a good suggestion here as well.

>
>
> At 06:09 14/10/00, you wrote:
> >a) Internal discussion: how should members participate to community
> >life? Should there be discussion boards, and of what type -
> >moderated/unmoderated, web/mail/Usenet, announcements/general
> >discussion/debate on specific issues...? should they be supported or
> >organized by ICANN, or "privately" managed? do they have just to
> >discuss, or should they get to consensus, and how? how to solve the
> >problem about different languages?
>
> IMHO this is a problem for the regional, local "chapters". I would hate
> the French group to be submitted to worldwide rules coined in the USA.
> I suppose you too.

  Some rules/policies will need to be uniform others will not.

>
>
> >b) Web sites: should there be an "official" site for every region or
> >country? should it be supported or managed by ICANN, or by the At
> >Large Forum if created, or be left to anyone's initiative?
>
> The current listed point ask for the ICANN to accept to links all the
> @large oriented sites and MLs. This is your suggestion "left to anyone's
> initiative". So I suppose this is OK. As you recall Alexander has the
> infrastructure well in hand. May be could you start the http://icann-ita.org
> site yourself as I have reserved the http://icann-fra.org ?

  Why not http://ICANN-EU.org? And why so many ML's?

>
>
> >c) Intermediate organization: should there be a formally constituted
> >At Large Forum and/or At Large Supporting Organization? regional or
> >worldwide? should it be supported by ICANN (i.e. paid expenses for
> >meetings...)? how should its members be (s)elected? how should it
> >work?
>
> I understand you ask questions to this list. So I will wait for responses
> by the ML. Current listed points ask a focal point in the ICANN to the
> service of the @large consistuencies. No the other way around. This
> person already exists, so no additional budget and worries for them. I
> suppose they want to keep @large low key so let do not make it a big
> issue until we know it it works or not.

  Well we already know that the @large is not legitimate under California
law as well as in it's current structure and application for membership.
So, until those problems are addressed and solved, the rest is not
productive to consider just yet.

>
>
> >d) Relationship with the Director: should the Director be
> >"independent" from his community and from the At Large Forum, or
> >should he be asked to consult with the Forum on main issues, or even
> >be forced to submit his positions to the Forum?
>
> IMHO Andy has responded to that already (so better not to have Japanese
> or Sout American rules imposed on us). The European Director has an
> @large oriented list which is this one, and an @wide oriented list which
> is the icann-debate@ccc.de one. He reads bothe. Up to us to organize
> with him.

  This seems a bit overly redundant from a ML structure to do discussion
and debate.  In fact there are already other ML's created that shadow
what you are suggesting.  Interest rate is low currently on those lists,
but creating new ones seems to be adding to confusion rather than
providing structure.

>
>
> >e) At Large elections: are we satisfied with the current process, or
> >do we want to have it changed and how?
>
> IMHO this is what ICANN wants us to sleep over. The study is foreseen
> for that. Like the DNSO GA which spent all its time to vote on the way
> htey will vote and now has to vote on the way they did a good job of it.

  The DNSO is in deep trouble now.  So I am a bit concerned with your
grasp of the reality of the DNSO currently.  All of the DNSO elections
have been tainted by fraud.

>
>
> There are two concrete action points in the list:
> -  the PIN to be totally resent using a serious postal service like NSI's
> -  the election of the 4 remaining ALDs using a worlwide constituency
>     with the rule that a region can onlyhave one ALD elect (otherwise
>     there would be an unbalance in favor of Asia).

  Asia may not like this due to their superior numbers or potential
@large members.

>
>
> >f) Conflict of interests: is it right to allow people who play a role
> >in other SOs to run for seats in At Large elections? and people who
> >have direct interests as players in the market, such as ISP or ccTLD
> >managers?
>
> Good point. As discussed with Gupta, this is a very difficult issue.
> If we do not want to be buried in it, I suppose we should accept that
> Members are individuals and it is upto us to get Members. After all
> in Italy every Italian vote, not only the poors, the retired, the small
> businesses, etc... I suppose a general debate should be initiated
> in Andy's Mailing List as this is an external point: you cannot ask
> people to commit suicide: there are active people on this list who
> belongs to large groups, manufacturers, ISPs, etc...
> What about Karl Auerbach who belongs to Cisco?

  Karl doesn't belong to Cisco.  He is only a employee with them.

>
>
> >g) Scope of the membership: should At Large membership just care about
> >matters directly related to ICANN and DNS, or should it try to promote
> >Internet self-governance in general?
>
> Hoops! Seems rather a political issue. Not a brick and mortar one.
> I suppose people will do what they want anyway you may want to rule it.
>
> >h) Representativeness: is the different participation among countries
> >in the same region a problem? should ICANN and/or the At Large
> >organization take care in promoting membership everywhere? or should
> >we just say "every country runs for itself"?
>
> Good point. IMHO we should leave the htinks as they currently develop
> between icann-europe, icann-fra, icann-candidate etc... lists. I do not
> even know if we are country and language driven. We argued a lot about
> ".eu" so we do not even know if we are "ccTLD" acceptable....
> You are a kernel of Italians, so you would probably be the next active list?
> We are 26 in France. If we can have a kick off meeting with Andy M-M
> in the French Parliament, we would probably do a lot of press and
> new participants. But obviously we would certainly work together
> with Swiss, Belgium, Africans... I start having some contacts with
> @large Canadians ... Hence the reason of icann-fra and not icann-france.
> But there is an at.large.france ML.
>
> >i) Membership fee: should membership be free, and supported by the
> >money collected from the domains market? have a small cost (a few
> >dollars)? have a high cost (20-100$)? should it be funded by private
> >efforts as it has been until now, or even by governmental entities if
> >they want to?
>
> Good point. This is certainly something to address among ourselves.
> May be would you like to make it a topic per itself. So we might
> derive an action point from the discussion. I am only worried about
> us paying anything to ICANN as it would mean making us dependant
> from them. I would prefer them to foot our accepted bills.

  GOod luck in getting ICANN to foot any bills.  They are in debt
now and getting further in debt with each day....

>
>
> An alternative I would find very acceptable would be that @large
> membership be included in DN registration for $1 per year. So the
> @large constituancy would be really @large, we would know
> all the Members, and this would be real democracy.
>
> >j) Relationship with other non-profit societies: should ICANN At Large
> >cooperate with ISOC, and ISOC take part in the membership organization
> >process, as some propose? Or other similar societies? Should the
> >membership itself try to formally constitute non-profit orgs in each
> >country?
>
> Good point again. This is an internal question again, so no action
> pointtaken yet.
>
> IMHO response is two folded:
> - as @large (ie this ML) we cannot relate with others. @large is a
>    constituent of the ICANN. DNSO/BC is not supposed to deal
>    directly with the IEFT. Otherwise is "divided realm".
> - there is obviously a need for direct relations with IEFT etc...
>    -  this should be achieved in introducing the @large concept
>       in the IEFT, etc...
>    -  the global end user approach supporting that @large oriented
>       effort everywhere in the internet governance is the @wide effort.
>
> > >P.S.: it seems funny to me that Vittorio and myself will meet in person for
> > >the first time on the other side of the earth ;>)
> >
> >And this will also happen with many other people from this list, I
> >suppose. And with Andy, of course. By the way, it would be interesting
> >to know what does Andy think of this meeting, if he will participate,
> >etc. I'll mail him.
> >
> >I'd also like, if it will be possible, to prepare an analysis about
> >election results (I love numbers), so I'm asking Andrew McLaughlin if
> >they accept to give us some data (I'll ask Andy's help on this).
>
> This would be very very great. We would certainly need for the
> LA meeting a good understanding of the votes we could use as
> a support to our demands. Also some projections in different cases:
> -  keep the current Members
> -  permanently add new Members
> -  open to every DN holder
>
> Jefsey

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208