Re: [ALSC-Forum] Benefits and goals of At-Large involvement

[Alexander Svensson]

Hello Sabine!

Sabine Fercher wrote on 09.05.01, 20:12:25:
> I think we have to go even further and think about a way the 5 geographical
> different regions are represented on an equal basis.
> Developing countries have other concerns. In a long term it is absolut
> essential to involve developing countries to ensure a healthy
> broad accepted development. It certainly will slow down the process, but
> this is what all democratical bodies have in common.

I generally agree, but I don't think representation of 
user interests on the Board of Directors is a slow way
of taking decisions. There will always be time pressure 
because of the fast-paced technological and economical 
developments, and there will be calls for more time to 
deliberate, to explore the issues thoroughly before 
deciding -- a compromise is unavoidable. But user-elected 
directors are not likely to decide any slower than 
unelected directors.

> [...]
> I propose that there is a percental distribution of @ large members - this
> would mean, and this is the negative thing about it, that developing
> countries could not be represented by each individual interested in it.
> Another way to ensure that developing countries get the same right would be
> to give those voting members more weight.

The one thing I'm sure of is that there is no singular,
objective way to solve these issues. 

Is there a way of 'transcending' the nation state when
it comes to the ICANN elections? I.e., are nation states
negligible just because the Internet is a global medium? 

Or, on the other hand, are nation states still the 
predominant frame, and every state gets a fixed share?
If so, what share is fair: One according to its population,
or one according to its number of Internet users, or
even one state, one vote?

How do we judge the potential dangers of such a national
approach to the Internet? Maybe the idea of global
electoral regions was not so bad after all? 

Does holding elections at all contribute to a politicization 
of ICANN issues? (This is question which has been raised
by people critical of At Large representation.) 
If it really does, in what respects is it bad, in what
respect is it good? Can a politicization of certain issues
be avoided? How can ICANN in general avoid certain issues?
Has there really been a demand for a larger role for ICANN?

(Please believe me that there is not a single question 
among these which is meant rhetorically. I would really
like to hear more people's views on these issues.)

Best regards,
/// Alexander