[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] A Proposal for an Open and Bottom-Up Self-Organization of the Membership
- To: icann-europe@fitug.de, Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>
- Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] A Proposal for an Open and Bottom-Up Self-Organization of the Membership
- From: "Cameron Smith" <cameron_smith@mail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:13:50 -0000
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-reply-to: <hdie0t8e3cv7tde6gbbf5rnobo4ie0prsr@4ax.com>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
Vittorio's proposal looks well-thought out.
My only possible concern would be that the intermediate layer of
ALCs could get in the way of people having a direct influence on
ICANN. But several things suggest that this isn't a problem:
1) 'Competition' between ALCs to effectively involve and represent
their participants. In many democratic and not-so-democratic
countries, NGOs and civil society organizations do have to
'compete' for recognition and popular involvement - those which
'lose touch' also lose their membership.
2) Direct elections - we still have a direct voting influence on the
ICANN board
3) Nothing to lose: ICANN has shown that it is not particularly keen
to listen to individuals who ask it tough questions - however salient
those questions may be. Therefore we have nothing to lose by
banding together in ALCs to try and make it pay more attention.
Therefore the next step, as Vittorio says, is to work out a
'Constituent Assembly' (the ALOC) which can thrash out and
legitimize the ALC approach.
Vittorio, could you suggest a more detailed timetable for the
ALOC's lifecycle: composition, drafting proposal, accepting
comments, going to the vote, etc.?
If we do have a vote, who is going to pay for the voting system?
Even if we persuade ICANN to provide a list of @large members
under NDA, I doubt they will stump up the cash to pay for voting.
Anyway, a very constructive proposal, Vittorio, lets flesh it out.
Cameron Smith