Re: [governance] [ga] Re: Establishment of the European Regional At-Large Organizaton

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Re:  you need 351 members to get to 8 individual
representatives, which would make it even with the
representatives of the 8 currently accredited ALSes in
Europe.

Vittorio,

Allow me to offer my thoughts on your weighted
representation scheme.  You and I are both active ISOC
members.  In your chapter you are the only person that
has a passion for ICANN matters.  We know this because
you had earlier set up an ICANN-related chapter
discussion list which had to be shut down by your
chapter president owing to "null interest".  That's
OK.  We can't expect everyone to be fascinated by DNS
policy issues.  In my chapter I am also the only one
with a passionate interest in this area.  

So, If your chapter (the accredited at-large
structure) is basically just you when it comes to
ICANN issues, why do you warrant an equivalency to 44
other individuals that took the time to sign up and
pay a fee (while you through your own organization pay
nothing)?




 
--- Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 14.29 +1300, Joop
> Teernstra ha scritto:
> > I agree that it reflects a kind of concession. 
> :-/
> > The question: is it enough to attract individuals
> of proud integrity and 
> > independence?
> > If not, could you raise this percentage to above
> 50%?
> 
> First of all, thanks for a constructive question - I
> really hope that
> people are interested in building a workable
> mechanism where everyone
> can participate, rather than in reopening old issues
> from six years ago.
> In any case, this is a very controversial matter,
> and if you read the
> messages that were posted in reply to my call, you
> will find both people
> blaming the ALAC scheme because only individuals
> should participate, and
> people who say that only organizations should be
> allowed in. Of course a
> compromise is necessary, and in my opinion the only
> good compromise is
> the one that lets all types of participants in, such
> as the one we are
> proposing.
> 
> Now, coming to the question: I think that this would
> happen naturally,
> if the number of individuals started to overwhelm
> the number of
> organizations participating in the mechanism.
> However, currently the
> ICANN Bylaws are still focused on ALSes and the
> ALSes are the main
> participants (even if IMHO they don't participate
> enough yet), and this
> is why I think it's right to start by 50/50.
> 
> The actual number of representatives of individuals
> in the EURALO
> council would depend on the number of individuals
> who register, and if
> you look at the document, you need 351 members to
> get to 8 individual
> representatives, which would make it even with the
> representatives of
> the 8 currently accredited ALSes in Europe. I think
> that it is a
> reasonable number, especially because I imagine that
> we could defer the
> once-in-a-lifetime membership fee for the first
> phase (it will take some
> time to be able to materially receive the payment).
> -- 
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a]
> bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com