Re: [ICANN-EU] European At Large Council

[Andy Mueller-Maguhn <andy@ccc.de>]

[looks like a good idea to answer on this one so that you 
understand that I absolutely see the need for an european
at large coordination forum, how ever itīs gonna be named].

So hereīs my ideas on this...

>1) Should it be a closed group, or an open one?

As open and decentrally organised as possible, as
effectively as necessary. There should be at least
represantatives from every european country and
it should be represantatives from user-groups,
whether voted through at large members or 
coming from existing user groups and forums.

I think it is important to integrate existing NGOīs
who care about issues like privacy, citizens +
crypto rights etc.

(not: company forums, not: european GD13 selected)

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

at least regulary meet to discuss the isues

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

there is many forums already, it should bring some forums
nearer together and look for the issues on the meta-sphere.

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

for shure

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

thats hard work but is worth a try if thereīs enough people are willing
to support such things. that might mean we need lawyers etc. Maybe
not in the first point, but it should be in the concept.

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

Global issues: yes. but it should stay as decentrally as possible as a forum
of the local groups of the different countries, not becoming the european
internet government illuminati game center.

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

official at large council? Are we taking about an "inofficial" one?

Legitimation is coming from the human beeings, not from institutions,
escpecially if those institutions have a 13 + 5 relationship from outerspace
selected to icann memberīs elected board.

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

I am not shure this is a good idea. The Candidate has to keep independent
and the communication forum also. It should support ideas, informations, 
discussion plattforms but nor product nor candidate placement. If there
should come up the point, that things go wrong cause of the pre-nomination
conditions, this should be the place where the at large candidates
communicate TOGETHER. 

But again as decentrally as possible. The issues and positions we agree
in such an institution have to be communicated in at least all european
countries.

>What do you (everyone) think of this?

I miss one important point: the "european at large council" or however it
will be called, or the working group to communicate and cooperate with
the european director should regulary meet in REAL LIFE. Mailing lists may
be great to keep informed about a common project or action but to get
people working together we need more communication dimensions. So,
if this is a PGO or not, in my point of view it needs RL-meetings. 

I know that this getīs very fast to the financing-question, but this is
a technical questions we donīt have to solve now, we just need to find
out what we want and (as same important) what we donīt want.

need some sleep now, more thoughts later. i didnīt mention transparency
and that this should be exemplary to ICANN cause someone else did already.
It could even be exemplary to the stuff happening at the european union...


Andy

-- 
"chaos will reign" - MPAA lawyer Leon Gold in the lawsuit against 2600 cause of DeCSS

Andy Mueller-Maguhn, andy@ccc.de, Postfach 640234, D-10048 Berlin, Germany
Key ID 331F9781 - Fingerprint 4996 E00B 317E AA17 9753 4678 9485 AD2A