Re: [ICANN-EU] European At Large Council

[jeanette@medea.wz-berlin.de]

> Obviously, such a structure can be set up with ICANN's help, and
> organizatorial means: For instance, ICANN could start setting up
> open discussion lists for at large members, they could start holding
> elections to create a council, and whatnot.  However, I don't see
> such a structure emerge any time soon, given that ICANN doesn't seem
> to have a clear idea about the @large membership's future role.

I'd guess that ICANN won't do anything before somebody (whoever 
this might be) has presented a study on the At Large Membership. 

Btw, about 2 weeks ago, I had complained in a mail to Andrew M. 
about ICANN's lack of support with respect to the coordination of 
the european ALM. My point was that ICANN should have set up 
regional mailing lists to make the self-nomination process more 
transparent to all who considered to run. Andrew interpreted this as 
an attempt to manipulate the election...    I wouldn't therefore 
expect too much of ICANN. We have to organize the ALM on our 
own. And I think this not bad, on the contrary, it's a chance.


> 

> My hope is that we manage to extend the membership of this list, and
> facilitate a dialog within the interested parts of the ICANN at
> large membership, and the public.  I hope that this dialog may at
> some point evolve into some kind of structure, possibly with the
> director as a germ of condensation, possibly by functioning as an
> argument-creation machine which generates input for the board of
> directors.  Or, possibly, as something much more strange than we
> currently imagine.

I fully agree.
 
> > I think this list does exist and works well. It is organized
> > around Candidates with critcal opinions about ICANN (the word
> > used by Ester Dyson describing her future role, so no offence
> > intended). We agreed it was to support the European no-NomCom
> > Director.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see this.  While this list was certainly created
> to help find reasonable candiates for member-nomination (which
> wasn't necessary, looking at the numbers ;-), I don't believe this
> list should have the goal to exclusively provide input to either
> Andy or Jeannette.  And I oppose to the idea that "this list" should
> produce any kind of recommendation for the election.  (Technically,
> it can't.)

Recommendations are not necessary. This list belongs to nobody 
but to its present and future members. It's up to the future director 
whether or not (s)he makes use of the list's ressources. In my 
view, (s)he is stupid if (s)he doesn't. The list should strive to create 
public awareness and practical input regardless of who finally 
makes it. 
If we are successful, the ALM will be a permanent institution that 
lasts longer as the term of any single director. To a certain agree, 
the ALM should thus keep its independance of candidates and 
directors.  
 
jeanette