Re: [icann-eu] LAST CALL: Study Committee Comments.

["Cameron Smith" <cameron_smith@mail.com>]

I agree with Vittorio here about being wary of rushing to create an 
@large advisory council.  Comments below...

> From:           	Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>

> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:56:17 +0100, you wrote:
> 
> >there seems to be a large consensus that some kind of at large
> >advisory council should be created.  Such a council could, for
> >instance, be used to elect part of the directors.
> 
> I'd be very, very careful in advancing such thesis. We have already been
> accused of being "membership-squatters", a bunch of self-nominated persons
> who are trying to hijack the membership and claim their representativity
> without basis. Trying to revert the direct election approach would easily
> create open and wide opposition inside the membership to our effort, which
> is the last thing we can afford.
This is a very good point.  The argument that pressure groups do 
not represent civil society/their constituency but are merely a vocal 
minority is often used by corporations and governments when they 
are trying to ignore pressure groups.  It may be an insidious 
argument but its a very effective one.

> I'd stay with the point that all nine Directors must be elected by the
> membership, period. I can't see how admitting an indirect election could
> help our cause now.
Agreed.  We have a very strong case in demanding this, many 
ICANN-watchers and readers of news about the Internet are aware 
of the 'board-squatters' issue, in contrast to the 'new' and less 
widely-understood idea of an '@large council'.

> I'd also say, more generally speaking, that we must show that we want to
> serve the membership, and not the opposite. This is also one of the reasons
> why I proposed to state that any conclusions drawn from the Study should be
> subject to a direct, general consultory vote among the membership, which
> should not bind the actions of the Board, but should make it clear whether
> any action that could be taken by the Board has or does not have consensus
> among the At Large community. Again, I think that it would be very difficult
> for the Board, from the point of view of public relations, to take decisions
> such as the elimination of some or all At Large Directors if it is clearly
> proven that the Internet community is against them. The only real strength
> we have is the number and variety of our members - so let's use it to defend
> ourselves.
A good sentiment.  However if we call for a vote and only a tiny 
percentage of the @large membership participate, does that show 
that we have membership support?  Or could it be used against us 
to say that 'no one cares about your idea?'.  I suppose on balance 
it is better to have such a plebiscite, as then we cannot be 
accused of denying a voice to the 'silent majority'.

cameron smith