Re: [ICANN-EU] Increasing representativeness

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2000-08-17 21:24:20 +0300, Constantine S. Chassapis wrote:

> Although I have enjoyed (for the most part) the politeness with
> which the German co-candidates (and simple members@large) have
> exchanged (so far) their ideas on the technical aspects and
> political dimensions of ICANN, in general and of this election in
> particular, I cannot escape remarking that, mainly, the picture
> that emerges from the emails in this mail-list is a picture of
> intra-German conflict.

This may, in part, be due to the fact that the list's creation was
announced primarily on German web sites and mailing lists.  

I'd welcome if the non-German members of this list could try to
spread the word on their ICANN-related web sites, and at other
suitable places.  Don't spam, however. ,-)

> IF ...

[Lots of conditions deleted.]

> Because it seems fair that Germany has the lead!

Non sequitur, actually.  Rather, it's that the German @large
members' endorsements are quite likely to be crucial in getting
candidates onto the ballot.  Given the large number of candidates, a
candidate with some media and net coverage in Germany will make it.
Obviously, this is what happens now.

However, such a candidate doesn't necessarily need to come from
Germany, he just needs to be known to the net community in Germany.
And that's where this problem meets my notes above: There is
currently a complete lack of coordinated online activism in Europe.
There are some points where groups and interested individuals get in
touch, for instance the ukcrypto mailing list, but then again,
that's quite specific and restricted to one particular topic.

Let's hope this discussion and possible spin-offs help to get such a
European net community going.

> But,
()
> I am afraid that both the two positions will be taken by
> candidates originated from Germany, that will mainly speak in
> ICANN about the Internet and about Europe, the German way, and
> the rest of Europe will be out (this is just a fear, things may
> turn out differently!).

Actually, the candidate to articulate specific national or European
interests still has to show up (well, almost - see
http://members.icann.org/nom/cp/7.html).  Maybe I'm naïve, but I
sincerely hope that the interests to be pursued and topics to be
covered by the @large directors will _not_ just be national or even
European interests, but actual user interests, which will turn out
to be independent on the national or continental point of view.

>> A network of at least one ICANN At Large representative per
>> country should be definitely constituted, be it official or
>> unofficial. There should be a virtual regional council through
>> which the European At Large Director can get the consensus or
>> at least the voices of everyone about important decisions to be
>> taken.

> I agree and I support that idea. Ideas of this type have already
> been proposed by other candidates too. Yes, we must
> self-organize! Fast!

Well, to put it a bit IETF-like: I believe in open lists and rough
consensus.  I don't suppose we need appointed representatives from
countries or the like.  I'd expect that with some luck there'll be
available a sufficient amount of expertise which is sufficiently
distributed over the continent, which just waits to be collected.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>