Re: [icann-eu] LAST CALL: Study Committee Comments.

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Thomas,
If this discussion may help you.

At 09:58 04/12/00, you wrote:
>On 2000-12-03 15:38:26 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> >>What I'm saying is this: Most of the proposals I've heared so
> >>far include such a council, and I haven't heared anyone speak
> >>out loudly against this.  About the only opposition concerned
> >>the naming, saying that "at large council" could have the
> >>connotation of indirect elections - but that's not an opposition
> >>which concerns the actual idea, but just the wording.
>
> > Beware: there is a broad difference between a council for
> > internal coordination and a constituency.
>
>Of course.  And of course, what I mean is that most of the proposals
>I have seen so far included some kind of advisory council (in the
>GAC sense) _within_ the ICANN structure.

I have heard none  myself. Rather, I have read on this list about
local ML to keep in touch with Andy and a list by Andy I used a few
times to keep in touch with him and be informed (I received nothing
on these lists lately). There is a big difference between an general
advisory filter and a private staff.

In your mind do you think about a group of people (s)elected in
the different areas and discussing together to vote advise to M.M.
Mueller Maguhn, Quaynor, Katoh,  .. squattering fours?

> > The first issue is to determine who is @large, to determine who
> > is voting. From then we may speak about the organisation of the
> > vote and the way to count (and recount) the votes.
>
>Do you want to re-open even that question?  This is some of the
>things I'd consider to be out-of-bounds, in the sense that anyone
>who has the interest and is willing to participate can do so - just
>as things have been during the latest elections.

This is a clean-sheet study. The scope should be something like:

-  who are the @large?
-  how are they/could be organized?
-  should they be represented at the ICANN board?
-  in which proportion?
-  through which elective process?
    -  direct vote
    -  indirect vote
    -  selective process or not
    -  constituencies: geographical areas, trades, implications
-  which way will we get the maximum of @large Members involved?
    -  through election only
    -  through collective structures
       -  which kind of structures?
       -  organized by who?
    -  through common actions
       -  which kind of common actions?
       -  organized by who?
    -  through the media
       -  which media?
       -  who is to campaign the media
       -  with which message
-  how are we going to organize the @large for a fair process
    -  qualification check
    -  registration period
    -  Membership fee: yes/not
    -  campaigning rules
    -  control
    -  practical organization

> >>Next topic: It seems that we hardly have a real consensus on
> >>direct or indirect elections.  Looking at those who have spoken
> >>out on this list, we have some who are proposing or have been
> >>proposing indirect models (such as Jefsey - BTW, anything to
> >>report from your other friends in France?), some who want direct
> >>elections, and some who can imagine hybrid models. Additionally,
> >>we have the CDT study which makes some strong arguments in favor
> >>of direct elections, and which neither we nor the ICANN staff
> >>nor board should disregard.
>
> > Thomas, please do not confuse the organization and the votes. We
> > have a study to define, not to do it. IMHO there is no difference
> > between direct and indirect, except the way to count the votes
> > (individually or by geographical/trade blocks).
>
>Ups...  It seems you are confused a bit: There's a HUGE difference
>between a direct and an indirect election.  In a truely indirect
>model (if you want, look at the elections for the prime minister in
>most parlamentary democracies), you'll in a first step elect some
>kind of representative body which then does the actual voting.

OK. I could not imagine you want to have an NC bis and indirect
in that oligarchical sense. For me direct is "every vote is equal" in
a single constituency, indirect is "votes are unequal" as a tow step
count, proxies first and number of proxies. Proxies up to now were
in most of the cases a person (like for the US President): in an
election as the ICANN it can perfectly be electronic as this is
a one shot election and the proxy must vote the way he has been
elected for. Unless you want to develop a World Parliament.

> > See above. The way to count the votes. Or the max number of
> > Directors per areas.
>That's the details of a direct model.  But it's not the question
>"indirect vs. direct".  So I understand you correctly that you
>actually favor what's normally called a direct election?

I am against by all means any @large structure being a member
of the ICANN structure. It would only be a NC bis and would only
serve to create disputes between/with the @large Directors. The
Directors are elect, they have the legitimacy.

I am also against a single worldwide constituency without rules
of local representation. As explained above what remains actually
corresponds to a direct vote and to an indirect election.

> >>> I can't see how admitting an indirect election could help our
> >>> cause now.
>
> >> So, what's the point you are actually trying to make here.
>
> > We are just to specify the themes of the study and the way
> > to have it done. We quite do not talk about that.
>
>We are of course not doing the study right now.  But what we should
>try to do is to see, as Alexander put it so nicely, what topics
>should be out of bounds for the study.

The BoD has voted a "clean-sheet" study. Now we are asked the way
to accomplish it. You cannot say remove that or I will be upset (you
could only say "don't do it or I blow the planet", ie impose on the
ICANN something changing the conditions under which they have
voted). But you may show that what you dislike is stupid and there
are many other more important issues your opponent did not see,
and they did not see how much it concerns them and their own interests.

We obviously know that the IP telephone is going to change the
Telcos' world and that anything which may speed up the market into
that direction before the Telcos may reorganize does not please them.
But if you show them that they may benefit from a structured dialog
with the market to help controlling that move, then you may interest
them and remove some blockades.

>So, the question is, what
>kind of outcome from the study could under no circumstances be an
>actual consensus?  What kind of results can we anticipate a priori?

There is no a priori in a clean-sheet study. This is its definition.

>And how does this fit the study's scope?  For instance, look at the
>question whether or not ICANN's board should have at large
>directors, and if so, how many.  Now, imagine that the study says
>"the at large directors are unnecessary, let's create an advisory
>council and reduce the board to the SO directors + CEO".  I suppose
>all of us can imagine the public outcry which would be the
>consequence of such an outcome.

I do not give a damn. This precisely to know if the public outcries
are not driving us in the wrong direction that the clean-sheet formula
has been voted. Anyway if your existing formula is good, what do
you fear?

>Now, this in turn implies that
>there is no real need to study this issue - instead, save ressources
>and try to work out a way to reasonably live with the current board
>structure.

This does not stand. If you are not partisan this only means: "hey! I
made the beginning of the study for you for free"..

>Similarly, what would the public reaction be when the study's result
>says: "Let's elect a 15-person at large council (similar to the
>Names, Address, and Protocol Councils).  Let those 15 individuals
>select 9 at large directors at their own discretion, with no more
>than 2 directors coming from the same region, country, ..."?  Could
>we imagine that, in three or four months, there is broad public
>support on such an approach?  If not, we should say so, and suggest
>to take this into account when designing the study.

I do not give it a damn again. As some of the French Prime Minister
said, "the policy is not made in the street".

Either the study is fair and it will be useful to all, whatever the result.
Or the study is unfair (this is in fact what you imply) and we have to
expose it. To better expose it we have to propose a fair study with
advisable ways to audit its fairness, so we may demonstrate easily
that the result would be biased.

>Actually, I do believe that such input will be critical in order to
>get something useful out of the study, given the limited amount of
>time which is available.

The need if for competence, information and honesty among the
study authors and audit for the readers. Time is not necessarily of
the essence. Let suppose that Mr. Crew is given 3 months to
present a study. If he is the person you describe he knows enough
to save a lot of time.

> >>- There should be some kind of at large body ("council",
> >>  "advisory council", whatever) which serves as a direct liaison
> >>  between ICANN's board and the general public.  This could, as
> >>  Wolfgang Kleinwächter suggests, be modeled along the lines of
> >>  the government advisory council.
>
> > NO! This may happen, but this should not happen. This is of the
> > decision of the @large community and may change. ICANN has
> > *nothing* todo with the way the @large community is organized or
> > disorganized.
>
>I didn't say that ICANN should organize the community.  I'm talking
>about creating efficient means of communication between the board
>and the community, which should ideally be in a position to show
>some representativity

I fear that the representativity you consider becomes filtering. I do
not think that Andy needs that much an elected council to talk to us.
I probably need more reasons to do it?

Again, what you propose is a counter-BoD, a Parliament, etc....
Agreed if it does not interfere, is not filtered and is useful.
Disagreed if it is an NC bis.

> > Do you want the ccTLDs story again?
>Not at all.  As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that one of the
>suggestions floating around in the ccTLD context is precisely to
>create such a council advising ICANN.

Certainly not. What is demanded is a way to access the BoD
and have representatives there to control the budget they pay for.
What is possibly investigated is a private body able to make
enough pressure on the ICANN (I would say an anti-IANA).
.

> > "we" do not exist. Actions, sites, ML, groups, cultures,
> > communities exist. "we" can only be elected or supported people.
> > We have not been elected and have not yet called for support.
>
>We, those who are participating in this discussion, do of course
>exist.  And we, those who are signing an eventual public comment to
>be made to ICANN, should of course try to do it in a way which tries
>to make sure we are close to the actual community's consensus.

IMHO it depends on what you call the community consensus.
Agreed if you consider the future consensus after the study has been
published. But we do not know it yet, so we may only guess and
warn and do our best effort to propose doing something sensible
in a controlled manner. Our atomic bomb is the Study.

For the time being ICANN in here is an American joke we
would replace if the European/French interests would be ill treated.
Depending on the result of the study it may be "WE the ICANN" or
it can be "forget about the ICANN".
Jefsey