Re: [ICANN-EU] European At Large Council

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

On 2000-08-29 17:09:19 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> 1) Should it be a closed group, or an open one?
> If it will be closed:
> 	- How big should it be?
> 	- How do we select its members?

You deal with that later.

> 	- Should we make an open call for anyone who wants to be a member,
> 	  and then close the group?

This would open the group for all kinds of arguments about not being
"democratic", "transparent", or "representative".

> 	- Should there be some limitations (i.e.: not more than 1/4 of the
> 	  members from the same country)?

The approach of a closed group will bring considerable overhead, and
make the formation of the group much more difficult.  Also, it will
make the group more susceptible for all kinds of arguments and
accusations.

Think, for instance, about your suggestion that the candidates
should opt in the other members.  I'd really like to see how the
Eastern European Countries, which may have a considerably different
look at the net, could be represented in a closed council.

> If it will be open:
> 	- How do we avoid the group being taken over, flooded, or accused
> 	  not to be representative?

Thinking about an open mailing list, the following approach may help
- it has certain implementation problems, though:

- Create two lists with a common submission address: One is open for
  all, one is moderated. 

- Appoint some respected, trusted, and independent individuals as
  moderators.

  Moderation could be done similar to what happens on bugtraq-l (see
  http://www.securityfocus.com/) all day: Certain threads are killed
  after becoming pointless, and sometimes, postings containing
  common arguments are summarized by the moderators.

  The default should be to accept posts, though.

  The problem with this approach is that it requires a continuous
  effort by these individuals, 7 days a week, and at least 12 hours
  per day.  I doubt we'll find the individuals needed for reasonable
  moderation.

- Possibly, add a third, more tightly moderated list which only
  carries a condensed digest of the most important messages.

We may also try to first set up an open group with some basic rules,
and see how people behave.  One or two persons could then try to
"moderate" in a more classical manner, by politely asking people in
private or public mail to shut down a certain thread, and the like.

> 2) What should its mandate be?
> 	- Should it advise the Director?

I think so.  I don't believe that any @large director will work
without any contact to the community.

> 	- Should it promote participation, organize open forums,
>	  lists etc.?

This depends on what kind of body you imagine.  Only a group which
has certain material means can organize forums, lists, etc.  I
believe this would rather be the job of ICANN itself, or of
organizations like FITUG, CCC, and others.

> 	- Should it try to work out a proposal on official At
>	  Large councils and further At Large membership
>	  enhancements?

I think so.

> 	- Should it explicitly state in its mandate that it wants
>	  to defend At Large members rights and prerogatives?

Isn't that implicit?

> 	- Should it try to issue press releases and get attention
>	  from the media?

This requires even more hard and boring work and dedication for some
of us.  Do we have the necessary means, and dedication?

> 	- Should it be temporary and expire when an official At
>	  Large council is formed by ICANN?

This doesn't need to be decided upon now, as it will depend on what
that @large council looks like.

> 	- Should it explicitly support one or more candidates in
>	  the final ballot?

No.  Any credible advisory body should behave neutral with respect
to elections' results.

> I've rethought at my original proposal, and after the discussions
> we had, I think that we should try to form a closed group (though
> open for reading to everyone) with somewhat "representative"
> people - but we should also try to get the best possible and most
> active persons in it. So I'd make an open call to everyone who
> wishes to get in, but (in case we get more applicants than the
> number of members, which I'd like to be about 20-30) I'd say that
> 60-70% of the places should go to candidates in this election,
> sorted by their number of endorsements, and then those people
> should opt-in the others choosing between the applicants.

Can we really assume that this method won't exclude interesting
ideas and aspects?  I don't think so.

> This would allow to bring in persons who were not candidates or
> could not get enough support but that are thought to be
> influential or important to have a good result, but would
> nevertheless ensure that the resulting board is somewhat
> representative of the At Large members' wish. 

I still have problems with considering the @large member-nomination
candidates to be automatically "the members' wish".  Consider, for
instance, the fact that the only eastern European (except the former
Eastern part of Germany, where Lutz comes from) person in the game
is a Nomcom candidate.  Remember, there's still the possibility that
a large part of the @large members who are silent right now will
finally vote for one of the nomcom candidates.

> The call for members should be adequately made public, i.e. with
> a message to all candidates and all At Large members in Europe,
> if ICANN allows us to do it.

I agree with this point.

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