Re: [ICANN-EU] Horizontal organization

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>]

Iliya wrote:

>
> > The idea was much opposed, and consequently direct election was 
>introduces.
> > But the concept of an AtLarge Council in itself could not be bad.
>
>Very true. The concept you discuss here reminds me of that, too. However,
>the possible greater influence of the AtLarge members will be part of the
>election study and the discussion thereafter. So carry it there. Please
>also note that ICANN always requests comments on the big topics via their
>website and does take them into account.

Indeed.
But this is in no way alternative to discuss it here.

>
>I guess that an AtLarge forum is a simple thing that the staff could
>implement after the elections (the candidates will get that anyway for
>their campaigns). Propose it to ICANN now. Directors could use this to ask

Well, in fact it would have been useful *before* the elections, just to have 
the issues debated and the candidates coming out from the debate.
We have found that some of us share the same views. We could have avoided 
this proliferation of candidatures that makes now life impossible to those 
who will come after vacation, go to the ICANN site, and see a list of 70+ 
profiles (plus links to other Web pages).
I am not blaming anybody, of course, but I'm saying that *now* we have this 
list and *an embryo* of structure, it will not be wise to drop it, and 
postpone the discussion to a future to-be-created activity.

Also, the mailing lists and the discussion groups of the Supporting 
Organizations are managed directly by them, without additional burden to the 
ICANN Staff and resources. Why can't the AtLarge community do the same? Of 
course there will be coordination, and suggestions will be reported to 
ICANN!

>the members about their ideas and positions.  I wouldn't split it into
>regional chapters, though. What for? The AtLarge directors are not
>representing their region, they are representing all users. I don't like
>this 'why the germans' discussion, that's pretty narrow-minded.
>

The only reasons are:
- manageable size
- use of national (or local) languages

Even ISOC, that is far smaller in size, has local chapters, and has issues 
that are debated locally and issues that are debated globally.
What's wrong with that?

>A few comments off-topic about 'raising media awareness': We had some
>experience with this in the Task Force. Either you target the geeks and
>experts with newsgroups, lists, etc. Or you want to reach the public (and
>the majority of members) with major papers (we never really made it to TV
>but that should not stop you). Then you will have to sacrifice details and
>truth. 'Evil US institution takes over the internet. Protect your
>country!' works best [you must decide for yourself wether I left out
>details or truth here :-)]. If that sort of work is your pair of shoes you
>will get pretty popular. Unfortunatly things are never quite the way they
>seem.
>
>That's it for this time, booting weekend right now


I hope you are having a nice week-end.

Regards
Roberto


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com