Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

Vittorio (reply to Joanna) wrote:
>
> >First, let's not forget that ICANN has no future without an At Large to
> >which significant numbers of existing At Large Activists can be 
>delivered.
> >Without that, it cannot support any claim to be fulfilling its core 
>mission
> >and ultimately will collapse.
>
>...and likely be replaced by the ITU, an intergovernmental
>organization that knowingly gives the public voting powers and broad
>ways to participate. Would that be an achievement for us?
>

The problems, the way I see them, are:
1) ICANN, in V1.0, has lasted many years. There is no indication that V2.0 
(or Vn.m, for that matter) will be either substantially different or less 
durable than V1.0. Given the fact that the human life is limited, unlike the 
series of cardinal numbers, the probability of seeing a substantially 
different ICANN Vn.m within our lifespan is almost 0. This, obviously, 
unless we find a radically new way to push ICANN in a new direction.
2) As already discussed, there is no big problem, from my POV, to give to 
International Treaty Organizations (ITU or other) the parts of the supposed 
mission of ICANN that are best handled outside the control of a single 
Government (example, the management of the Root).
3) With reference to the "what to do now", in this message andf in the 
general thread on the subject, I believe that we concentrate too much on 
aspects related to the "power" of the user community in ICANN, without 
having actually any involvment (let alone a demonstrable show of 
willingness) for said user community.
Unfortunately, I deleted the very good contribution of Karl, paralleling IP 
Constituency and Individual Constituency (incidentally, anybody archiving 
publicly this list?), so I have to quote from memory. Anyway, the point is 
that IP were successful because they expressed the interests that were 
common to the category (constituency), while the user community is much more 
dispersed.
This only means that the task is more difficult, but cannot be an excuse for 
skipping the step.
In other words, we are claiming representation in name of a body that never 
clearly stated the willingness to be represented, let alone fighting for 
this representation. The problem, IMHO, is not to organize elections where 
only a fraction of 1% of the Internet users will participate, but to 
organize the Internet users, and then to define with them how to proceed.
Some of the older among you might have witnessed the students in the late 
ī60s-early ī70s going to tell the "working class" what they had to do, and 
claiming representativity in their place because they were no "mature 
enough" to act. Well, some of the claims of representativity of user 
interests remind me of that. Most of us have not even seen the average 
Internet user in the developing countries, not to speak about having the 
slightest idea of what their needs and priorities are.
Letīs start from the last AtLarge elections. What has been the key of the 
success (at least in some countries)? The interest of the media on the 
subject, and the activity created on the regional level by some initiatives 
(Thomas Roesslerīs list comes to my mind). Before that election, in 
I-donīt-remember-which ICANN meeting, I said that the problem is not to 
elect 5 rather than 9 AL Directors, but how we will be able to involve the 
AL community. Years later, we find that we have lost time, because while the 
AL Directors have performed their tasks within the Board, IMHO they have 
failed their mission to their electors: to use their power to promote the 
self-organization of the AL community to prepare higher awareness and 
participation in new elections.
The Regional model of the RALOs is not a bad one, giving the current 
circumstances. It is not perfect, and it can be criticized by the 
maximalists of the "one-person-one-vote" party. While the 
"one-person-one-vote" can be a target, it is absolutely impossible that it 
could lead to meaningful results in the shoert term (IMHO). Letīs face it: 
none of us has the slightest idea on how to contact and bring to the ballot 
box millions of users worldwide. Besides, does anybody have any idea about 
"why" should they care?
But on one thing I would make a clear statement: the future AL Directors 
should take a strong commitment to have during their mandate one highest 
overriding priority, which is to do their best to organiza the AL community 
to be more mature the next time around.
Incidentally, I still believe that this is best done via Regional councils, 
and that it has been a terrible mistake to change this approach for a direct 
election. A Director is powerless in organizing the AL community in his/her 
region: I canīt blame Andy for not having done it in my region, as he has 
enough to do for the Board, let alone the fact that he must do something 
else for living, as most of us. A team of Council Delegates from different 
countries would have had more time and resources to do it (incidentally, 
that would have also helped the localization of ICANN).
Anyway, the fact is that we have lost time. Can we possibly learn from 
mistakes, or are we forced to go through this once again?

Best regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html