Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: European At Large Council

["Griffini Giorgio" <grigio@mediapoint.it>]

Jeanette wrote:
 
> Giorgio,
> 
> > If I were a director I will prefer to have a limited number of people to
> > deal with 
> 
> Why?
> Of course, there may always be a trade-off between efficiency and 
> democracy. However, in this case even more than in others, the path 
> is the goal. If we fail to set up an open consens-building process 
> among the at-large members (and those who wish to join!) we should 
> forget about the whole effort to democratize ICANN. 
> I truely believe that legitimicy will only be gained by low thresholds for 
> participation. Everybody willing to contribute should be welcome. 
> Restrictions should be confined to the form (and, perhaps, the 
> frequency) of contributions. 

Yes but it should be manageable otherwise the director will spend most of 
his energies in trying to understand what is the concern rather than trying to 
find a solution for such concern. And if we talk about understanding if there is 
consensus thing may become even worse... It is like to have to cope with a 
whole stadium voting: If you get consensus it will be surely representative but 
how much it will takes to safely count raised hands ?

> 
> for stay informed on sub-regional issues (where the boundary
> > is the country) 
> 
> IMHO the at-large mailing lists should be less about informing the 
> director but rather about creating some sort of working group.
> Also, I am not sure whether geo-political boundaries are that important 
> for the issues we have to deal with. Generally speaking, it makes no 
> sense to me to reproduce the political order of Europe if we have a 
> chance to ignore or transform it. Admittedly, this might be a very 
> german perspective ;-)
>
 
As already told in another msg I think it is almost unpratical to act as there
were no boundaries while they actually still exists.  
There are 'cultural boundaries' not 'technologic boundaries'  and  they should 
converge at their own pace by influencing themselves until they reach a 
stability point. (Ach... entropy again...:-)

> 
>  Tasks of these
> > members should be to collect issues,hints,opinions from a wider audience
> > in their own country by promoting public discussion on relevant topics
> > topics by ML or any other mean and summarize it for director 
> 
> IMHO this would be even more hierarchical as ICANN functions today. 
> 
Such hierachy is not related to 'power' but to allow for having results. 
And this is the most important goal to reach when you bootstrap an 
organization. Also, we have working examples of strictly ruled  organizations 
but consensus based like IETF, for example. There may be things that need 
to be adjusted a little but it seems to work...

> 
> > Current ICANN concept about 'representativity' is amount of endorsements
> > received and Nom-Com nomination so I think we should stay on this
> > concept at the moment.
> 
> To quote Alexander,
> 
> > But I agree with Thomas -- this 'pre-election' is about finding
> > a suitable candidate for a Director. I would not like a
> > parliament consisting only of people who tried to become Prime
> > Minister...
> 
Any other concept of 'representativeness' will be questioned as arbitrary 
because if you choose another one you will be 'instantly' not representative 
(by the new concept) for placing that choice.
Anyhow I was talking about the bootstrap process. When this bootstrap-
group will develop the charter it will have the chance for choosing any other 
more comfortable way to measure 'representativeness'...

Best regards
Giorgio Griffini