[atlarge-discuss] Geographic representation (was RE: [atlarge-discuss] VittorioBertola's candidation statement)

[espresso@e-scape.net]

Forgive me for throwing in my probably-unwanted two cents Canadian but I really can't let this debate pass without comment. Several points are worth noting, I think:

1.  Although many Americans have made admirable contributions to the Internet, technologically and philosophically, it has been quite a long time since ONLY Americans were discussing issues like democratization, transparency of governance, etc. (It could be argued that the French contribution to that debate started as far back as 1789.) 
    One fundamental problem -- in the "real world" as well as Cyberspace -- is that most Americans know only English and are therefore unable to recognize the contributions made by people elsewhere. Europeans, Asians, Africans and Middle Easterners of any education are often fluent in several languages, of which English is usually one; therefore, they are generally more able to follow what goes on outside North America.

2.  The ICANN setup for regional representation is inherently skewed. Even if one assumed the regions were truly able to elect board members to represent them (which is clearly not the case), there was no provision for equity of representation within the regions.
    As an educated Quebecer, I speak French almost as well as I do English and can muddle through reading German or Spanish. I get my news from around the world via the Internet, not just from the major American media empires. I have been actively involved for years in matters of broadening Internet access, democratic participation in public affairs, and ensuring that the technology which belongs to the global public domain should not be hijacked by government departments or industry lobbies. 
   My perspective is not at all that of the average American Internet user or domain name owner ... but within ICANN at Large, that's irrelevant. I am on the North American continent and therefore "my representative" will almost inevitably be an American known to the greatest number of American members, despite the fact that quite a number of Canadians have made and are making significant contributions to the ICTs and their use. I expect that in other regions the candidates from numerically-predominant-on-the-Net groups will likewise end up representing people they barely know about.

3.  I don't mean to denigrate in any way those Americans Judith Oppenheimer rightly mentions as having made real contributions, but surely people should be able to understand that there can be no online democracy worthy of the name if it is to be created without the active participation of people of all nations. 

It is simply wrong-headed to assume that the Americans will create something to suit themselves and that will be the right thing for everyone so everyone should simply fall into line. It's that kind of assumption which has created friction between the U.S. and everyone else on the stage of world politics, negotiation of trade agreements, pursuit of joint policy initiatives, etc. It's just as wrong in the context of ICANN, no matter how excellent any given American candidate might be, and just as likely to cause avoidable disputes on governance of the Internet. 

Especially since English, once almost the only language on the Internet, is rapidly diminishing in importance as millions of Europeans and Asians have gained access, technical sophistication, and awareness of the critical issues related to the technology. Africa and Southeast Asia are still lagging behind but even that is changing. It will not be long before the majority of Internet users will be on the Web in Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Arabic rather than languages using Roman characters. If whatever structure evolves for Internet governance does not take that reality into account and allow for active participation by people who don't necessarily speak English, the process will remain completely unfair no matter how "democratic" it is for the English-speaking North American.

4.  In my opinion, we can hardly pretend that either the call for nominations (on short notice, without adequate explanation of the rules and procedures, and with no effort to reach beyond the population which is already involved in @Large issues) or the manner in which this discussion is
being conducted comes anywhere near the usual notion of democracy. Neither does ICANN's casual disenfranchisement of the representatives we elected last time around, nor its gutting of what little input the At Large membership was supposed to have within the organization, of course. 

But we can hardly preach democracy to them unless we are willing to practice it ourselves, and that can only begin by recognizing that there are many worthy candidates elsewhere in the world who simply could not be nominated under the conditions provided, let alone elected within their respective regions, since so few Internet users have had the opportunity to become members and sned in nominations or cast their votes. Without worlwide outreach and a genuine willingness to allow people of other nations to participate fully, this whole process is meaningless or worse.

I'm sorry to be introducing myself to you all with such a long and critical posting but the process is deeply flawed, as we all should know by now, and it seems to me that our energies should go into correcting that rather than squabbling amongst ourselves about the value of letting Americans choose to represent other nations because we know their names.

Regards,

Judyth Mermelstein
a.k.a. "Judyth la pomme"

#################################################
Judyth Mermelstein  <espresso@e-scape.net> 
Montreal, Québec "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
#################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de