Re: [alac] Discussions on the current model
Wendy, and all, [I included Chris in copy, as he might not read the ALAC list, but has raised to me similar questions] I think that there is little question about the fact that there is, so to speak, room for improvement. However, I think that different ALAC members are approaching the issue with different strategies, probably because of different approaches to life (what the German philosophers call "Weltanschauung"). Let me explain what my vision is, and why I have this approach. I do believe that there is an urgent and important need for user participation, to make the voice and the problems of the people who do not have either a commercial or technological interest or function heard by the Board and influential in ICANN's decisions. However, as Steff used to say, there's a difference between "voice" and "vote". And, may I add, the latter without the former is IMHO not useful to make things progress, while we can live with having the former without the latter for a while, building the conditions to have eventually both. This is how historically all successful movements have built their way into systems from which they were excluded. The direct election of Board members by individual users that had no influence in the process in between elections is, IMHO, a mediatic success, but a failure from the participation point of view. This is why I do believe that the NA region takes the wrong approach in refusing trying the present model. I would argue that if instead of 22 certified ALSes we had now 222, we would be half way to the solution. Once RALOs established, each region could organize itself in a way to have direct individual user participation (this is the model that we are currently discussing in Europe), but since our target is participation by the thousands, I do believe that a two level model would scale better. In other words, a representative democracy model rather than a direct democracy model. In this view, I would strongly recommend EFF, ACM, CDT, and what else, to join and start working from the inside to improve the mechanism. Now a word on the "why". This is my third attempt to build user participation, and I am not sure I will have the energy and enthusiasm to attempt a fourth one. The first attempt was the individual users constituency of the DNSO. A great idea, I thought, lots of people supporting it. However, as I confessed to a friend upon my retirement from the ICANN world after the Berlin meeting, I succeded in having my employer (ETSI) qualifying to join the PSO, but I failed in having the individual users constituency accepted in the DNSO. And I consider the failure having been more significant the success. The second attempt was the GA-DNSO. When I accepted the Chairmanship, my dream was to build a voice for everybody in a context in which civil discourse would be the interiorized rule (meaning that people would have behaved that way without need for enforcement), the noise/signal ratio very low, the voting process such as to be able to present community-consensus proposals to the attention of the decision makers. We all know how it ended. This is the third one. The point is that I would like to see some results, not to leave the task to my childrens. To abandon the attempt without having exploited its potential would, IMHO, bring us back to square one. And the clock is ticking. My recommendation would be, therefore, to strongly advise the Board to conduct a review of the ALAC that must include an evaluation of the mechanism as soon as possible, ideally in 2006, while concentrating in Vancouver on what we can do with the present structure for making the users' voice heard. This will mean to go ahead building the RALOs in the regions where feasible (at least AP and EU, possibly LAC and AF), a strong "last call for boarding" to potential ALSes, the commitment for the newborn RALOs to identify working mechanisms for individual (meaning non-ALS) participation, revitalization of public lists and public comment areas, and other items we might be able to identify in the next days. I have already started in the Board, and in particular with Vint, to introduce the concept that RALOs might have a representation mechanism that would allow inclusion of individuals not related to organizations, as a short term change, and the need for a voting representation in the Board, as a medium term change. But I am strongly convinced that the order should not be reversed. Best regards, Roberto GAETANO ALAC ICANN BoD Liaison From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
|