Re: [ga] Re: A note to Vittorio

[James Seng <jseng@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

vb,

I would like to disagree with the point below: By saying you can't have 
meaningful flat structure, you mean organizations like IETF couldn't 
have existed.

I think it *can* be done. What you need is start to thinking about the 
structure, what makes you an ALAC member and more importantly, whats 
makes you not (as reference, see RFC 3683).

The idea is a bring constructive people into the debate the consensus 
debate while minimizing the destructive elements. In that effort, 
'reputation' is a great tool; Even without formal process, we already 
see this in action - at least I witness some members of the list being 
regularly ignored.

And don't be concern about flood of people swarm to join ALAC. There 
wouldn't be, at least not 200,000 people we see back in 2000 unless of 
cos we go back to the mode of trying to elect ICANN board member via 
that method. A NomCom like process would make election moot and hence 
people who truely participate in ALAC are really those maintain their 
good reputation, cares about ICANN and willing to give their time to 
give constructive feedback to ICANN.

Which gets me to the other point I made in last ICANN meeting: Don't 
just go get members - tell me whats the process to make formal 
contributions to ICANN. I dont see that happening right now (In fact, I 
see the public consultation work done directly at ICANN better avenue).

ps: I also notice you said ALAC is about internationalizing ICANN and 
not about individuals. If so, you might have less trouble if you rename 
ALAC more appropriate - ICANN regional charter or something but dont 
claim to speak for individual otherwise.

-James Seng

On 09-Mar-05, at PM 05:36, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> You can't have a meaningful flat structure at the global level - I'm
> still convinced of this. You need intermediate structures where people
> can discuss in a forum of manageable size, in their own language. 
> That's
> especially true for individuals.
>
> So, the problem is that user interest in ICANN participation has
> dramatically dropped. Whether this is the cause or the consequence of
> the too slow growth of the RALO/ALS mechanism, we don't know. But we
> know that something needs to change. We tried At Large 1.0, it worked
> fine to some extent, badly to some other. At Large 2.0 was the same.
> What about At Large 3.0?