Re: [ICANN-EU] European At Large Council

["Griffini Giorgio" <grunz@tin.it>]

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Dear  Vittorio & Roberto & Giorgio ;-)
>  
> 
> > > >>	- How do we avoid the group being taken over, flooded, or accused 	
> > > >> not to be representative?
> 
> For some reason, I'd expect rather the opposite, meaning that this 
> lovely intercultural place could well end up deserted (no, not entirely 
> deserted, but almost) after the election period has finally cooled down. 
> In the same vein, I can't imagine that 35000  members will really wish 
> to participate in the day to day business of the at large membership. 
> Also, I can't imagine who on earth and for what purposes would want 
> to try a take over.  
> 

Attempting to start a 'task force'  by offering such opportunity to candidates 
will be instead a way to see if they were running in order to represent the 
membership or for other less noble reasons (vanity for example). 
Maybe you will be right anyway about 'the desert' and this will even enforce 
that these seats will not be a privilege but instead an additional 
responsability and they will not give so much return (for non-noble intents) 
after the election period cooled down. 

> 
> > > >It will not have as a target to be representative, and will therefore
> > > >not 
> > >be
> > > >able to "speak on behalf of the Membership".
> 
> As some people on this list have already pointed out, 
> representativeness is difficult to achieve at present. The candidates 
> form a sub species, which does not represent the whole ALM.
> 
But they represent part of the ALM who think is able to take the 
responsability to represent them. It is a 'rough' selection but I think we
all are used to live with 'rough' criteria....:)

> > >But then, it will be possibly useless. If it's not representative, why
> > >should its voice be kept into account by ICANN or by the Director? 
> 
> A director who wouldn't listen to the community's voice because it 
> lacks a formal structure would be the wrong choice anyway. And 
> regarding ICANN, I wouldn't be so sure that a formally established 
> council makes a great difference. Especially if it takes decades to 
> agree on a modus vivendi. 

I agree about the director issue but such 'task force' is not so formal as you 
think. It is just a group of voluntary people  who possibly wish to build a 
structure to lower current language boundaries which is a thing that makes 
discussing issues difficults here in Europe. Think about what are doing 
French candidates. They will be able to collect more opinions to bring here , 
otherwise even if this ML is open you will see them only here because they 
are more confident with english language rather the wider representative they 
may have.

> > 
> > The argument that we cannot arbitrarily choose a certain number of "top
> > voted" people is valid (even if it is still better than nothing, IMHO).
> 
> I don't agree on this one. I think this would be worse than an open 
> mailing list, in case you consider this to be nothing ;-)

Uh? Arbitrarily choose?  I was proposing a method based on endorsement 
votes given to candidates. Is this so arbitrary ?
About being worse than an open mail list it depends on what  result you 
target. If you target to reach consensus about some basic principle or idea 
you are right. But when it comes to do some real work the 'mailing list' by 
itself cannot do that 'magic' and some real people is directly involved.
To avoid the risk of doing the same things in too many it is usually better to 
split work across people so there should be the need of a role for each task. 
And if there are roles they should be almost 'roughly' organized and defined. 

> 
> > The only chance to have a legitimate Council, or Coordination Committe,
> > or Advisory Body, or whatever, is to elect one. But then, we don't even
> > have the list of the electors.
> 
> Yes, perhaps another election would be the way to go. 

Isn't the endorsement phase an election in itself ?
Do you think is so wrong to think that if membership endorse a name for 
place it into the ballot (because the membership feel that given name is quite 
close to their point of view) we can count on the same feel and apply it for a 
less 'rewarded'  'sort-of' seat like be in a task force devoted to promote 
representativeness?
>  
> > The only way I see is to talk the candidates into pushing for this to
> > happen if they are elected.
> 
> I'd imagine a council as a group of people to discuss tricky questions, 
> to work on dramatically complex problems and thereby becoming a 
> benefit for all who happen to be part of this club. The director would 
> be just one of them. Too optimistic?
>
If such 'task force' will fail in building up a larger community voice to support 
it it will endanger his representatitvity in itself  so it it will became a worthless 
club. And I'm not sure a director would like to lose time (and trust) playing 
there...

Best regards 
Giorgio Griffini