[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [icann-eu] Agenda for ALM meeting in Melbourne

At 17:12 31/01/01 -0500, Hans Klein wrote:
>The next ICANN meeting is in Melbourne, March 10-13
>  see: http://www.icann.org/melbourne
>The Interim Coordinating Committee (ICC) formed in Los Angeles is currently
>working to obtain official ICANN meeting space for an At Large Meeting (ALM).
>Right now, subscribers to this list might consider what issues are
>appropriate for an ALM meeting.  We might discuss a possible agenda.
>I believe the following items should be on the agenda:
>Report from At Large Directors
>Newly elected directors can give a brief account of their work to date on
>behalf of the ALM.

>Relationship with Appointed At Large Directors
>Four of the nine AL director seats are occupied by appointees.  Some groups
>have called these individuals "board squatters" and others have noted that
>they are accomplished individuals who contribute a lot to ICANN.  These
>four directors could each give a brief talk about how they understand their
>role on the Board.
>At Large Study
>The At Large Study has a new director and a new charter.  See:
>   http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr26jan01.htm
>   http://www.icann.org/committees/at-large-study/charter-22jan01.htm
>We could invite the study chair, Carl Bildt, to speak to us.

>Definition of Consensus Procedures
>The ALM needs to define consensus procedures, i.e. a set of well-defined
>steps to demonstrate the presence or absence of consensus among ALM on
>issues.  I would like to have Louis Touton or David Johnson speak to us
>about this.  Eventually the ALM will need a working group on this.

This is a tricky one.  Consensus is fine in small groups, where voting
would be unnecessarily polarizing, but among the 100.000 plus @large
members, I feel that the only acceptable way to determine the will of the
members is voting.
Instead of listening to L.Touton it would be better to split up in Working
Groups dedicated to  defining the necessary procedures that would safeguard
an unbiased way of polling the membership. (starting with electing a
Polling Committee and defining its duties) 

>The Members Announcement List
>We should discuss the possible formulation of a proposal to create an
>editorial board for the members-announce list currently controlled by ICANN
>staff.  There should be some means by which members can reach each other
>using this list.  This would preserve member privacy while allowing for
Yes. This editorial Board should also be elected.

>Does this agenda look appropriate?
>Should items be added, changed, deleted?

I would like to add the point of securing travel subsidies to @large
members to be able to attend physical meetings. 
An appeal to the Markle Foundation perhaps.
Without broader support, we run the risk that the physical @large will be
mostly those who fall under the Salzburg Seminar subsidies (NCDNHC-members