Re: [alac] Selecting Our Successors
I am wondering why a structure which does not work for your region should work for the European region. What is it, that makes this RALO structure work better in Europe?
The fact, that out of eight or nine ALSes seven belong to the regional chapters of one organisation? (And even those are not complete - the large ones of UK, France and Germany are missing)
Starting a RALO with that group of members does not serve the function of legitimizing At-Large work and makes outreach work even more complicated.
It is already hard to get Europeans involved in ICANN work, but not because we do not have enough people active in serving internet endusers interests/consumers rights. Actually, Europe has quite a lot of very interesting consumer and user organisations as well as individuals working in that field.
They were not attracted by the excisting structures to get involved because they are impact oriented and not keen in bureaucracy. The RALO structure as proposed now worsens that problem. Instead of showing how and on which issues they can have an impact, the outlined EU-RALO will be a closed shop for those who want to spend their time fighting for persons not for content. Participation will be reduced to electing those who will finally elect the relevant two persons.
I do not share your hope that "if you build it, they will come" - there is some interrelation between *what you build* and them *being attracted* to come.
And Vittorio already told me, attracting others is not the point of this proposal on EU-RALO structure:
In his opinion I "misunderstood the point of the exercise, which is not to involve new people in the discussion, but to conclude the interim process and agree on the EURALO structure among those who already applied to participate."
this is really a very strange approach to start a regional at-large organisation. Though I do not think your intention is to establish a closed shop, I reckon that this will be the outcome of that structure.
To avoid that, skip the dead line of the 15th of february and let us try to define functions, regional at-large organisations could and should fulfill and a strategy to get endusers more involved in ICANN policy making.
experience shows, that if you establish an organisation with its own charter/by-laws, it is hard to change it even if the model prooves not to work. There is something like a certain organisational tenaciousness - and of cause the fact, that there are people elected on this bases for two years contributes to a certain persistance.
People who want to get involved with internet consumer issues in ICANN do not want to put their energy in changing the rules of an organisation first, before they can start to work.
So, let us start to discuss possible and effective forms of participation, possible regional issues and structures, proposals for how to deal with the problem of different languages etc. And then let us start an "experiment" which is open to further changes.
I think that there are pros and cons with your proposal....