Re: [alac] Selecting Our Successors

[Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@xxxxxx>]

Bret,
I am still thinking about your proposal of a possible voting procedure, 
which is an interesting approach.

For ALSes, I think there could be some more functions than "receiving 
and distributing information". This is certainly something they could do 
too without being an ALS. But I think there could be a special regional 
function which might not be so obvious in the US but in other countries, 
where language is a problem, where you have different legal structures, etc.

And in general, we do have to make At-large-participation on special 
issues easier and I am looking forward to our new website in combination 
with the ICANN wiki. But we do have to work on these tools to make them 
really effective.

And once again I, like others on the ig-list, ask Vittorio and Roberto 
to cancel that deadline off discussion on EU-RALO until the 15th of 
february. This is not enought time for public envolvement.

All the best
Annette

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Annette, that's my perception as well. In my view, the seven years of 
> ICANN's history shows that end-users can be counted on to muster 
> energy and interest in ICANN's work (a) out of a sense of civic duty 
> for periodic elections of Board members, and (b) when an issue under 
> consideration directly impacts their business or personal interests. 
> (That's the way I approach the activities of my government, both local 
> and national.) Outside the significant circle of persons who have 
> decided to volunteer their civic efforts toward the DNS -- that's us 
> among others -- most individuals and organizations are unwilling to 
> devote significant time and resources to ICANN. (That's not unique to 
> ICANN; it's fairly typical of the way individuals and organizations 
> approach most public policy issues as well.)
>
> This is why I think the current structure only works if the 
> expectations on the ALS is extra-light. The primary responsibility of 
> the ALS is to receive information from the ALAC and disseminate it to 
> its members. After that, anything is a bonus. On occasion, when an 
> issue affects the ALS, we'll get something back. Once every year or 
> two, we can ask the ALS to help elect the ALAC representatives. If we 
> ask them to do anything more, in terms of financing or time, I think 
> the ALS-RALO-ALAC structure is doomed. 
>
> I think this also would help us market the ALAC: all we're asking is 
> that you receive information about ICANN and distribute it to your 
> members. 
>
>        Bret
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Annette Muehlberg wrote:
>
> > 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.