Re: [ALSC-Forum] The at-large is not just about voting and directors' seats

[Vittorio Bertola]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:36:17 -0700, you wrote:

>ICANN, besides being obligated to being "open and transparent" is required 
>to be "accountable" - which raises the question: Accountable to whom?  The 
>answer is obvious - To the At-Large.  But what does "accountable" mean? 
>It's a word that implies something beyond an abstract and meaningless 
>right; it implies something with sharp teeth.

I agree with the above (though I think that ICANN should be accountable to
all its stakeholders, not just the At Large), but:

>I've appended the list below.  These all seem reasonable things for the 
>at-large members to have beyond the mere right to participate once every 
>couple of years in an election for someone to sit on the Board of Directors.
>
>1. A meeting of members must be held in each year in which directors are to 
>be elected.  Members may apply to the Attorney General to order such 
>meeting if not timely held.

I think that this is absolutely inapplicable to a worldwide organization. Do
you think that 100'000 members could actually meet somewhere? If the meeting
is physical, as this law says, this would favour members living in
California, that could easily take part to the meeting actively, while it
would be very difficult for people of the rest of the world to get there and
be heard (also because we are talking of people whose "daily focus", as the
ALSC says, is not on this matter, and that can't afford to travel to
California for that).

By the way, what language would be spoken in such a meeting? How would you
deal with that majority of the world that doesn't speak English? (and even
among those who speak it, many can read and write it with the help of a
dictionary, but cannot understand a normal English speech in real time)

>2. Special meetings of members may be called by 5% of the members.
>
>3. Members are entitled to written notice of member meetings.
>
>4. Members may act by written ballot.
>
>5. Proxies are allowed unless withdrawn by bylaws or articles. Proxies may 
>be limited by articles or bylaws. Proxies are revocable.

In Italy, we have a sort of At Large membership for the .it policy board,
with around 300 members that meet physically once a year to elect the board
and approve significant changes. During last assembly, a single person
collected some 30 proxies by people he didn't even know, and basically any
difficult decision was decided by him. This made our assembly seem
ridiculous in front of anyone...

The general assembly method, however, has big flaws. It is impossible to
manage an assembly of 200 people (let alone 200'000) and get something out
of it: it often ends up in noise, in contradictory decisions and in endless
useless discussions.

>6. Members may bring derivative actions.
>
>7. Most amendments to articles must be approved by Board and members (and 
>any other persons specified in articles).
>
>8. Board must send annual report to members.
>
>9. Membership lists and accounting books and records and minutes must be 
>made available to members for proper purposes.
>
>10. Members may amend the bylaws; however, the bylaws may provide that the 
>amendment may occur only with the approval of a specified person other than 
>the Board. (e.g. SOs).
>
>11. Directors elected by members may be removed by members.
>
>12. The bylaws must specify a quorum requirement.
>
>13. Members can bring legal actions to determine the validity of elections.

Most of this is fine.

>I recommend to the At-Large Study Committee that they enumerate the 
>specific rights that At-Large members are to have to make the At-Large a 
>meaningful body and the At-Large elections an opportunity for meaningful 
>and informed decisionmaking.

I agree with this. But I think that the At Large members should have
accountability rights that can work on a virtual worldwide basis. For
example, rather than a general meeting of the members, there should be the
possibility for a given number of members to promote a general online vote
among the members to ratify or veto certain kinds of issues.

I also think that the very concept of "ICANN member" should be introduced.
I'd evaluate the possibility of making also SO members "ICANN members"
exactly equal to others; then, when joining, any members should choose the
constituency (or constituencies?) to be part of, be it an SO constituency or
an At Large (sub)community. This would help in bridging that sense of
contraposition between the At Large and SOs and make everyone feel they are
a part of the same thing. This, if it is held useful, would also help in
preventing "conflicts of interests" when a SO member also tries to be
elected as an At Large Director and so on.
-- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <vb@vitaminic.net>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology
.it Naming Authority, Executive Committee Member
ICANN At Large Interim Coordinating Committee, Member