Re: [ALSC-Forum] Self-regulation and ICANN

[Vittorio Bertola]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:20:17 +0200, you wrote:

>Even if you answer all the question above with yes, it remains 
>unclear to me, why At-Large-directors should represent regions or 
>even nations, which would arguably imply that a higher voter turnout 
>would be necessary to achieve legitimacy.  

The issue is obviously complex, and I suggest you shouldn't mix the two
questions:
1) Is a higher number of members useful or even necessary for ICANN's
legitimacy?
2) Should At Large directors represent regions/nations?

As for the first question, the Internet - taken as the concept of
"interconnection of private networks" - *is* after all a public good that
affects millions of people, so I can't see why we should not have millions
of people participating to its government, if they wish. And having a higher
number of members would have other positive effects: it would make it much
more difficult for any organized group to take over the election by
subscribing "packets" of instrumental and unaware members, and yes, it would
help ICANN in achieving more legitimacy, as ICANN will be legitimate to
manage such a worldwide public resource only if it proves that it can
represent all parts of the worldwide Internet community.

The second issue is quite complex. On one hand, I agree that Directors
should represent points of view and practical programs, rather than
countries - so they should perhaps be part of an "e-party" and be selected
for their ideas and commitments, rather than for their nationality. On the
other hand, last year's elections proved that people mostly voted by
country: we don't have the data to actually show it in detail (unfortunately
they were destroyed) but it is evident that, for example, in Europe German
people and media only considered German candidates, French only French, and
so on. This was due to the excessive number of candidates, but I also think
that this is somewhat natural and cannot be avoided at least in the near
future. And by the way the development of the Internet also affects
considerably each nation's economical future, so it's reasonable to think
that none of them will like to be cut out from its government - this is why
some level of geographical diversity should always be ensured among the At
Large Directors, and by the way, if you would not force it, Africa would
never get a Director soon...

So in the end I think that there should not be a per-country Council with
national representatives, but there should definitely be an intermediate
Regional Council, as this would help to bring more people inside ICANN's
official boards and would naturally increase diversity. The Regional Council
should be a coordination and consultation board (not constraining) for the
At Large Directors, and could possibly become a catalyst for the membership
to grow and establish itself. By the way, there are also language and
culture issues that anyway prevent such a small number of Directors from
being actually representative of a whole continent or planet, so a more
local level would be helpful also for this reason.
-- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <vb@vitaminic.net>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology
.it Naming Authority, Executive Committee Member
ICANN At Large Interim Coordinating Committee, Member