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

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

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

Excuse me, but I disagree with the "one director max. per region" rule. Either 
we go for a global election and accept the voters' decision with all the 
shortcomings implied or we reject such a model for its lack of 
representativeness. In the latter case, I'd question the kind of restrictions 
imposed on the voters' will. As you surely know, there won't be any woman on 
ICANN's board after the ALM directors are seated. Unlike the representation 
of Africa, that of women will be zero! I find this at least as disturbing as a 
regional imbalance. Hence, I wouldn't support any form of region-based 
restrictions.

Just for clarification: it goes without saying that this is not about me. It's rather 
unlikely anyway that I'd run again for a board's seat anytime soon. 

jeanette



> 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>