[atlarge-discuss] RE: Questions for each candidate (My answers)

["A/S Mauro D. Ríos" <mdrios@adinet.com.uy>]

Dear members, colleagues and friends,

1. Do you intend to support the formation of Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) as enumerated in the ICANN bylaws?  Why, or why not?

RE: ICANN promoted this instrument to give participation to regions and sectors that are not the historically active ones. Although the opinions are divided, it is important to create the mechanisms that provide the necessary spaces for an effective and real global participation. This is much more than a simple forum multi-language, the structures should be created inside the organization that they act about the reality and defend the interests peculiar of all the geographical regions.  
  
In my opinion, I don't see an impediment so that the R.A.L.O is developed., but it is NOT the solution to assist the global reality, the R.A.L.O. they will add complexity to the organization, the logistics and the political structures. It would put a stone in the route for the executive action of @Large, action non bureaucracy is needed. The solution is the institutional divisions that make focus in the regions to settle down and assist their necessities on time coordinating and accompanying the general objectives of the organization, sharing oneself vision and mission.

..........

2. Which DNS issue is most important to you?  What policy change would you recommend to the ICANN Board with respect to that issue?

RE: It is a wide and complex topic, day by day new inconveniences are added, perhaps not so much from the technological point of view, but yes in organization aspects and administration. The DNS suffers of several symptoms, among other the references to countries are in the obviated facts, this it is a topic that it should be considered and for the one that it is necessary to find a solution.  
  
The property of the DNS, the agreements among client and ISP, the royalties and the intellectual property of the contents, are topics that continue in all agendas without a clear solution. The unilateral action of the countries and the diverse interpretations on rights and the individuals' duties and organizations in the Internet, they establish a difficult scenario. The challenge is to achieve, from @Large, and of course from ICANN, an incidence in the opinions of those who have to be able to change the norms, to create them or to modify them, in the countries and the international organisms. The challenge is that the own @Large is a clear reference and certain on the road that the DNS and the Internet should travel.

Much of these things has been gotten and others should be gotten, but to each step, @Large seems not to finish placing its firm roots, so that it allows him to move with freedom, worrying about its mission and not for topics that they should have been overcome a while ago.  
I don't have doubts that the political and administrative division of powers is an important step that should be taken.

..........

3. How many At-Large directors should be seated on the ICANN Board?  What strategy do you recommend to accomplish that goal?

Sincerely to choose a number of members for the Panel can be subjective. In what do we base to say that 11 members or 3 are the correct thing?. To take like reference the number of members is not realistic and surely if @Large expands as all we want, 3 are little and 11 are not sure. But, if we consider that it is urgent to establish a division of powers and of course of profiles, evidently 3 are insufficient, therefore I believe that 11 are a guessed right number of members for the Panel (of course it would also accept 10 or 12). Anyway, 3 are a number that can concentrate too much power on few hands and could wake up mistrust among the members. And (more serious), other organizations and institutions, they can also be mistaken this concentration of powers.

The strategy is an open voting. Complicated mechanisms cannot be looked for, neither to try to reinvent the wheel of the democracy. Of course, technologically we will look for the best instruments to guarantee the necessary seriousness. If the vote of the members should or not to be obligatory, it could be discussed for that the representativeness is important. Some members can say that a Panel with a support of 1% of votes it is not legitimate.

..........

4. Will you participate in lobbying the U.S. Department of Commerce to formally re-bid the ICANN  contracts?

RE: I don't know in detail the incidence of the U.S. Department of Commerce in relation to the ICANN. But all the negotiation environments are important, @Large cannot be indifferent, let us be or not in accordance with the facts. The globalization catches us, all the scenarios should be observed.

..........

5. ICANN constituencies are required to submit a new charter and statement of operating procedures no later than 15 July 2003.  Will you commit to this same goal for this organization within the same timeframe?

@Large is sovereign to decide, but we should apply the best practices to build a Internet for all (built by all). We cannot put stones when not you had begun to walk. It is very important the coordination of actions and activities, not only with ICANN, with all the organizations. We will look for agreements and consents that allow concrete, coordinated and effective actions. It is not logical to lift the flag of the independence if we share so many things in common with ICANN. Independent YES (perhaps), solitary marathon-man, NO.

..........

6. It costs money to run any organization.  How do you intend to fund this organization?

RE: There is not too much science to apply. But the creativity should always be present.  
The contribution of memberships is, without doubts, a source of funds. Sponsors and donations will be another source of money. All the possibilities should be analyzed, of which don't believe that reinvented formulas appear, but an efficient and transparent administrative method should be applied.  
  
Other sources of funds can be, perhaps (!?): events, consultancy services and advice, investigation on-demand, independent management of projects, other. Many of these possibilities open doors but they leave other queries, for example: Should @Large compete in the market of services?. Should @Large be only a theoretical organization of the Internet?  
  
We cannot look for financing without considering aspects like, for example: A very important donation of an institution or person,... can it commit the transparency of the organization?, will it be observed with doubts and suspicions?. Can the commercial companies donate us money?. Will the sponsors be done as a marriage between marks and names with @Large?. Should all the members pay?, is @Large an open organization or for subscription?. How much money should the members pay?

..........

In your view, what is the mission of this organization?  

RE: @Large is an organization that represents people in a global world, determining a common point of view democratically. It should be different to the rest of the organizations, sharing some aspects but establishing unique rules. It is indispensable that @Large becomes a reference point for the whole public or private organizations, institutions and governments.  
  
Will it analyze and to suggest the routes for where Internet will walk in the future, in institutional political aspects as technological.  The great victory will be to be listened and respected. The seriousness with which approaches the topics and their to act internal with the members, they will determine great part of the battle to become a reliable organization.  
  
Organization, division of powers, to consider all the geographical regions, to listen, to build consent opinions and to respect the game rules interns and external. These are only some of the things that should guide us in each step.  
  
Internet can be a powerful realization environment, but we should act with the feet in the earth. The ideal thing is enemy of the good thing. Any decision that takes the organization, will keep in mind, among many things, the connection rate, the critical mass of members and of navigators, the tendencies and the objectives of other international organizations.   
  
The goals will be of two types: (1) long term, a horizon that draws the road, but (2) objectives to short and medium term, realizable objectives that maintain the motivation and produce concrete results. I want mainly an organization that acts in an executive way, making, not speculating, discussing or confronting parts eternally. I want a representative organization of the interests of the Internet community, assisting the political questions of the net, regulations, names of domains, etc. 

sincerely,    
Mauro D. Ríos.-    
mdrios@adinet.com.uy


Note: sorry for my english.