"Luc Faubert" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
What do others think of this?
Yes, most important of all! Please comment.
Rather than bringing in NomCom in dispute resolution, couldn't the Chair be responsible for this, as is the case in IETF working groups? I would trust the Chair to take into account the RALO's interests more than NomCom, and knowing that the Chair will decide if no consensus is reached acts as a stimulant for participants to reach consensus.
Also, if we're going to use rough consensus to choose the ALAC reps, why do we vote for the Chair?
On why the Chair shouldn't decide at the end of failure of the consensus process, I didn't think we wanted a powerful Chair. Rather, I considered the Chair more of a moderator. Also, if you knew that the Chair sided with you, you might block consensus, knowing you'd get your selection through the Chair's selection. With a committee, the outcome would be in doubt. And I completely agree with you that holding the outcome in doubt is a good thing, as it will put some modest pressure on the group to reach consensus. I suppose we could create our own committee, like a UN Security Council or our own Nominating Committee, but it seemed to me that, in keeping with the notion of a lightweight organization, better to rely on an existing structure than to build a new one. On why vote for the Chair, I thought it mattered less and would be simpler. I also considered the fact that one of the important tasks of the Chair would be to oversee the solicitation of Statements of Interest and the consensus building process, so he or she should be selected by a separate process out of time with the selection of the ALAC seats. I was thinking an election of the Chair before June 1st of each year so the call for SOIs can go out by July 1st.
Another point is participation of individual users. I had found it interesting in LACRALO's OP that they had allowed for individual user participation and think we should do the same. But should they vote on ALAC reps and the Chair nomination? LACRALO does not allow individual users to vote. If we allow them to vote, we must find a way to balance their vote with the ALS vote.
Yes, this is an interesting issue. I support the involvement of individuals in ICANN's work, but ICANN has given us an At Large built on organizational membership. The history here is ICANN's long institutional distrust of identity and authentication when an individual is only known by an electronic mailing address. The problem is solvable, but at what cost in time, effort and money? Would love to see some discussion on this and some proposals to make it work. Bret