Re: [ICANN-EU] Increasing representativeness

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

On 2000-08-18 01:32:54 +0300, Constantine S. Chassapis wrote:

> Lets find an intelligence and fair way to self-organize in a
> level a little bit higher than a mail-list.

I'm absolutely not convinced that this would be the right way to go.

> For example 1, a think-tank may be formed, but a little more
> organized than a simple mail-list, maybe some intelligent
> technology is needed or some intelligent people, where the
> discussions will be more organized, presented threaded,
> interlinked, maybe a search engine, maybe a specialized site for
> the group.

Mh...  Did yo look at this list's archive site?  It's threaded, a
search engine could easily be added.  (Personally, I tend to prefer
local mail archives, and use my mail user agent's abilities to
browse the archive.  However, YMMV.)

> Maybe some external people will be invited to express ideas,
> people from academia, or industry. 

This certainly sounds reasonable.

> The people in this body, I call it "eubody", I imagine they will
> work a little more through their answers or their questions, they
> will have the time to work some material during for example the
> week-ends, nobody will press someother for answer, there will be
> no elections. 

Which of these points can't be guaranteed on a mailing list?

> Some intelligent organizational scheme is needed, some bylaws
> will guarantee that we will be self-protected from governmental,
> industrial or other hidden influence, , ... ok, I stop now.

You're running into a trap, here, I believe.

What you are calling "high-level organization" involves considerable
transaction costs, and structure.  This implies that funding is
needed, which may in turn lead to dependencies and influence from
funding parties.  On the other hand, using ressources readily
available without explicit costs, and keeping structure as simple as
possible would avoid such hidden influences to a large extent
without adding the complexity of explicit bylaws and the like.

> For example 2, a european group that may even publish a magazine.

Magazines require work.  Who's going to do it?

> Then maybe a book. Then maybe, with support from enough members,
> we may even become a respectable pressure group. If you have a
> respectable number of people from all over europe, not only
> mass-media will get interested, but also, we will have rights
> related to the european uinon.

Good point.  However, I'm not sure if a formal pressure group could
reach as far as a "community-building" effort could.  With a formal
pressure group, possibly involving a certain amount of power and
influence on others' decisions, members will have to ask themselves
whether or not they want to support the direction in which this
influence is exercised.

On the other hand, an informal community can easily accomodate very
rough consensus-building models, minority opinions, and whatnot.  I
believe this would be more fruitful, and is closer to what we really
need today.

> For example 3, Greece is a good place for summer vacations, maybe
> we may organize an open forum each year in some Island of Greece.
> Maybe we may even invite some rock or jazz groups, and do
> something of a happening. You know, that, among other things,
> draws publicity.

There are other nice places in Europe, too. ,-)

However, physical meetings lead to expenses, effort, and the need
for funding, with all the disadvantages I talked about above.

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