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

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2000-10-16 02:56:25 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Point 2.  Election of the 4 pending ALDs by a worldwide unique
>               constituency, ASAP. One Director maximum per region.

Have you checked whether there are any plans on this at ICANN?

> Point 3.  The ICANN @large site should introduce and link every
>		self-constituted @large site and MLs overthe
>		world.

Frankly, I wouldn't expect this to happen any time soon.  However, I
do believe that the directors may now lend their legitimacy to
"supporting fora", and could possibly be helpful by pressuring ICANN
officials on this topic.

> Point 6.  A permanent polling system of the @large Members will
>	       be installed. Any group will be allowed to use it
>	       at will. 

This will open up the way for Denial of Service Attacks against a
voting infrastructure.  In particular, the few At Large members
which can be expected to participate will at some point get bored,
and stop voting.

> 	       This system will accept questions from groups and
>	       permit group members to vote yes/no/veto
>	       documenting their veto position. It will be
>	       permitted to change questions and votes to progress
>	       towards consensus.

Eh?  You mean, it will be possible to submit new questions.
"Changing questions" while a vote is in progress would make the
entire thing unusable.

>              The groups will be able to use this for internal
>	      decisions or elections as well as for progressively
>	      escalating propositions towards a general consensus.
>	      This is an RFC like process extended to a worldwide
>	      democratic approach.

Provided the membership is representative.  We had this discussion
before: Just counting votes will lead to distorted results unless
you get a large part of the "public" involved.  We shouldn't be
overly optimistic about that involvement; thus, At Large
organizations will most likely be forced into a model which is
mostly about documenting arguments, and possibly dissent.

> Point 8.  The @large constituency needs a budget.

... paid for by whom?  You are certainly right that an at large
constituency based on individuals' commitment and free time will not
work properly.

>               No clear action point has been reached on this.
>	       Gupta, Vottorio have discussed it. The point has
>	       been risen by others. One suggestion is to have
>	       them self-organizing and each PIN holder to
>	       designate the chapter he joins. The chapters would
>	       have a budget from the ICANN on this basis, or
>	       could get their own sponsors as per common
>	       selection criteria.


> Point 9.  The @large assembly in LA needs a chair

This can - most likely - be left to those who organize the meeting.
They have some natural right to chair it.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>