[ICANN-EU] Re: European At Large Council

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 17:09 29/08/00 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:19:27 CEST, you wrote:
>
>>If we have consensus, we should start thinking on how to proceed.
>
>May I propose a sequence of points that we should solve to proceed?
>
>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?
>	- Should we make an open call for anyone who wants to be a member,
>	  and then close the group?
>	- Should there be some limitations (i.e.: not more than 1/4 of the 	
>	  members from the same country)?
>If it will be open:
>	- How do we avoid the group being taken over, flooded, or accused
>	  not to be representative?
>

Dear Vittorio,

It should remain open. Anything else will immediately be attacked as a
"cabal". Busy people come and go. Fresh blood must always be encouraged. 

Not being taken over is a matter of resistance to bullying and otherwise a
battle of ideas, (a charter should help)
list-flood can be combated with  limited-posting-rights per-day rules and 
accusations about lack of representativity will have to be substantiated
before they can be taken seriously.

I think the 2 list approach (one for general input and discussion, another
task -oriented) is the best approach. 
The task -oriented list should have an elected Chair who keeps the list on
track.
The task oriented list should be laying the foundations for a workable
European @L Council.


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

If such a body comes into existence and it has any credibility, a European
director should be well advised to listen, if it has something to say :-)

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

Yes. It should also promote participation elsewhere within ICANN, perhaps
especially in the supporting orgs. such as DNSO (see Roberto's point)

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

A big task, but ,yes.

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

Such as there are, yes.  

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

It will need a solid Charter and structure to be able to do that.

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

Once it is alive and functioning, it is too valuable to kill it.

>	- Should it explicitly support one or more candidates in the final
>	  ballot?
>
No.  
 It might want to organize its own informal elections first. (My polling
Booth could be made available for that).
If the winners of such an election  would be defeated in the ICANN
election, then we know that there is something wrong with the body's
representativity of European @L members. 




--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org