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

[Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>]

Dear, Roberto,

You are quite right that I was being sloppy in my use of language,
for which I apologize.  I had a meeting on Sunday from 8am until
9:30pm, and I was quite tired when I read my email afterwards.
I also hope you will forgive my delay in responding. I have been
in non-stop meetings since, and I'm only now writing you from a
plane on my way home.

What I *should* have said was that I respectfully disagree with
your suggestion that we call for the indirect election of the remaining
four at-large representatives.  My concern about holding an indirect
election are that we may end up with people being labelled as
"at-large" representatives who most of us feel do not represent
the at-large membership.

Upon further reflection, I suspect that our seeming disagreement
stems from our images of how indirectly elected at-large Board
members might be selected.  My concern is that we may end up
with people who are similar to the hold-over (as Thomas said,
sometimes referred to as Board Squatters) at-large Board members.
In particular, if we are not planning to oppose the indirect election of
the remaining four Board members, then I believe that we would need
to propose one or more methods for selecting them upon which there
was at least consensus in our group.  I would also urge people to state
that an unsatisfactory selection method would lead to our opposing
any indirect election and calling for direct election.

Finally, I believe that if it is the consensus of this group that direct
elections for all nine Board members are preferable to indirect elections,
then I hope that we will call for direct elections, even if we feel that
there are powerful forces that would oppose such elections.

Regards,
Barbara

P.S.  I suspect I am not the only U.S. citizen who believes that
indirect election is less democratic than direct election.  As you
know, we appear to be about to elect a president who did not
receive the plurality of the vote, because of our indirect (Electoral
College) voting process.  That is what I had in mind when I talked
about "reduce democratic input".

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Barbara,
>
> You wrote:
> >
> >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
>
> May I respectfully ask where did I propose in my E-Mail "not calling for the
> election of all nine at-large Board members"?
>
> >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.
>
> Again, who proposed to "reduce democratic input"? Not me, AFAIK.
> So why are you shaping your message as an opposing answer to my supposed
> opinions?
>
> >
> >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.
>
> And which are those forces, and how/why do you see my post connected to
> that?
>
> >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.
>
> On which basis do you consider the proposal of electing 5 Directors directly
> and 4 indirectly be "not democratic"?
> A lot of political systems have a mix of direct and indirect elections, to
> ensure balance. Why should ICANN AtLarge be different?
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> P.S.: text below left in case somebody wants to double check that I did not
> at all propose to reduce the number of AtLarge Directors.
>
> >
> >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
> >
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com