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

[Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>]

Dear Roberto,

I must respectfully disagree with you about not calling for the
election of all nine at-large Board members.  While it is true
that a sufficiently large organized group can "condition" the
election, as you say, this is always a concern with democracy.
I don't think that anyone thinks that the recent election was
perfect.  But, I feel strongly that we would be doing a major
disservice to the millions of users of the net if we were to go
along with the effort to reduce democratic input into net governance.

I am opposed to giving into claims made by forces who want to
reduce or eliminate the at-large simply because we may not win.
I am not at all convinced that we are confronting a fait accompli.
But, even if I thought we were, I might still want to argue for the
democratic election of all nine at large Board members on the
grounds that those who are opposed should be forced to make
their case.  I don't believe that we should hand them cheap victories.

Regards,
Barbara

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Good evening.
>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >What I'm saying is this: Most of the proposals I've heared so far
> >include such a council, and I haven't heared anyone speak out loudly
> >against this.  About the only opposition concerned the naming,
> >saying that "at large council" could have the connotation of
> >indirect elections - but that's not an opposition which concerns the
> >actual idea, but just the wording.
>
> I have the impression that to fight for a direct election of all nine is a
> lost fight.
> The results of this first attempt has demonstrated that it is technically
> possible for press (the case of Europe) or some industrial group (the case
> of Asia-Pacific) to strongly condition the election.
> There is no way we will be able to extend this to half of the Board.
>
> OTOH, the indirect election of 4 can be the only compromise solution
> possible to achieve:
> 1. to keep the principle of 9 AtLarge
> 2. to keep 1 Director per Region elected directly
>
> Also, I am convinced that we absolutely need some form of "at large council"
> (name to be decided, if "council" sounds bad to somebody).
> It is very doubtful that we could achieve this in the short term, and
> uniformely in the five Regions.
> To link the Council to the Board elections may provide the global solution,
> and speed things up.
> Let's put it this way:
> 1. We cannot organize elections for a council without ICANN's endorsement
> 2. ICANN will not tackle at the same time Council elections and Board
> elections
> 3. To push for Council as intermediate structure may lead us to have
> elections for the council in one year or slightly more, and 4 additional
> Directors a couple of months later.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com