comments below.
On 5-Jun-07, at 8:59 AM, Ted Ernst wrote:
Sorry, I used the wrong email address to send this the first time.
On 6/4/07, Ted Ernst <ted@chicagohumanist.org > wrote:I (Ted Ernst representing Emerging Futures Network) abstain on the Draft Operating Principles at this time. I'm still unclear on much of what we're doing, and how voting works.
Some questions:
1.) What are the boundaries of our region? I ask because I see we use English and French, which presumably covers USA and Canada, but not Spanish, which tells me Mexico is not in our region. Is this correct?
The information regarding regions and what countries are included is well documented on the ICANN website (URL below). It has been mentioned a few times on this list and in some of the teleconferences.
That being said, as you and others are newcomers - thought it would be a good idea to list the references and comment.
relevant URL's
(1) Review of ICANN Regions -28 November 2006
(2) Definition of ICANN's Geographic Regions
Countries listed as being included as the "ICANN North american region":
| American Samoa |
| Canada |
| Guam |
| Northern Mariana Islands |
| Puerto Rico |
| United States Minor Outlying Islands |
| United States |
| Virgin Islands, U.S. |
- Mexico, which is geographically located in north america is part of the ICANN Latin American and Caribbean region (which I believes is the way Mexico is classified at the United nations)
- Official languages: The USA (as stated by congress) is English, Canada's official languages (at a federal level) are English and French
2.) 70% affirmative vote is required to adopt the Operating Principles. Is there a time-limit? Am I free to change my vote anytime before we reach the 70%?
70% is the % that is needed for a rough consensus (see ref below) . For the motion on the floor, it specifically means if there is "general agreement" to proceed to adopt the proposed Operating Procedures for the North American (NA) RALO.
Rough consensus is a term used in consensus decision-making to indicate the "sense of the group" concerning a particular matter under consideration. It has been defined as the "dominant view" of a group as determined by its chairperson. The term was first used by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in describing its procedures for working groups. Rough consensus is consistent with other models of consensus, such as Quaker-based consensus.
The means to establish rough consensus was described by the IETF (1998) as follows:
Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement). Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached (IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures).
The creation of at-large RALO's (regional at large structures) were envisioned in documents drafted in 2003 (see url below). The in-trim at-large committee and ALS's were formed with the understanding that their role was to form RALOs. The bylaws and ALS applications clearly mention that. My understanding of the bylaws and ALS application is that signing implied that one would be in support of a regional RALO being formed. if are an at-large structure, then I hope you understood that.
Again, as you are new to the group I am including a few references .
ref:
The latin american, african, asia pacific and european regions have already formed their regional RALOs. We in north america are the last and remaining region yet to organize to create our own regional structure.
3.) Is the document we're currently voting on fixed until is passes or can it be changed in order to satisfy concerns raised during voting? If it's changed, are previously cast votes void and we start over?
The OP needs to be adopted to proceed in the RALO formation processes. In a sense, the question to the NA ALS's are "are you ok with the spirit of the OP and that we proceed towards a RALO". If so, say so.
The numerous discussions on this list and the teleconferences have made it clear that the OP is likely to be revised to incorporate suggestions and/or improvements after the regional RALO gets formed.
Sorry for my basic ignorance and newness. Hopefully I'll catch up soon.
I quite understand, it is a complex issue with a great deal of history and with some dissenting views.
Though I am in favor of NA RALO formation I do respect the fact that that there are dissenting views. It is my belief that their concerns and issues can be best dealt from working with the existing organizational framework I think more can be achieved working in collaboration with other RALOs to effect positive change both within At large and ICANN as a whole. Perhaps it is a more Canadian view...
I hope that with my comments and references are helpful.