[governance] Reinstate the Vote

[Kieren McCarthy]

> Those same questions can be raised about any electoral process - 
> and indeed about any externally imposed system such as ICANN's ALAC.


Trying to draw a number of threads together...

I wish people would look at the ALAC, RALO, ALS system dispassionately for a
second. 

The issue at heart is how to find a mechanism that not only informs ordinary
Internet users about the work that ICANN does, but also, in return, produces
candidates for important posts with ICANN itself to act as representatives
for that community.

A few of the problems surrounding this issue have come up on the list: how
to inform that many people; that ICANN is only a small part of the wider
system of providing and sharing information across the world; the enormous
and insoluble problem of representation when applied to the global Internet.


It strikes me that if you ignore the torrid history and clash of egos over
the years, that the ALAC/RALO/ALS system is a pretty logical structure,
designed to be scalable and to ensure regional representation.

But many of the comments on this list take as a presumption that this is not
a logical structure. 

I think everyone may be missing the bigger picture. 

For example, with this election argument: no one is pondering where the
candidates - or, rather, the best candidates - come from. 

There are such things are natural leaders; natural co-ordinators; natural
communicators. The advantage of having a structure tree is that it allows
the best candidates to bubble up. You see it every day: someone joins a
group and within a few weeks you see that they are making useful inputs. At
some point, if they're good enough, people put them forward to a
representative role. If they shine, they are asked to give presentations to
wider groups. If they have the unique set of skills that stretches beyond
that, they proceed further up. And each step along the way, they gain more
credibility and more backing from more people which helps both the
individual's understanding and allows people to trust their judgment, so
decisions can be made at the top which people are content with.

Without such a structure, an ALAC election would simply be pulling people
out of a pool of those that applied. No one would know who they are or what
they are capable of and would have to rely instead entirely on a CV - and as
anyone who has ever had to hire someone will know, a CV tells only a third
of the story.

So in that sense, the ALAC structure that already exists could end up being
enormously beneficial to ordinary Net users. 

I also think - as I have said many times in the past - that the
ALAC/RALO/ALS structure does a very powerful thing - it enables someone to
stand up and say "I represent five million people". 

I know that Karl feels he represented 330 million people, but whichever way
you cut it, he was elected by whatever proportion of the 3,449 North
American votes cast ended up in his favour and he directly represented only
the 10,632 North Americans that were certified as voters.

I know there is endless argument to be had over who did what to whom and why
and how it wasn't fair and how it could have been done like this and how
there could and should have been many more voters, and so on and so forth,
but the reality was that this was not a good model of representation.

With the ALS system you have an information feedback system in place (well,
one that needs to be put in place), and you have an ability for someone to
stand up and say "I represent all the people underneath me in the RALO/ALS
chain".

I think that's a powerful and useful position to be in.



So, then there are the problems. 

The biggest real-world problem that people seem to have with the
ALAC/RALO/ALS system is that it is too difficult or too complex to join or
create an At Large Structure.

If this is the case, then this is a topic we should be tackling immediately.


How is it difficult?
Why is it complex?
Do we need to create a simple set of guidelines?
Do we need a simple technical infrastructure?
Where does the system need improving, and where is it working?


As ICANN's general manager of public participation, I would be very
concerned if people who want to become an ALS are finding it too difficult
or complex to do so. 

So what are the issues? What is the best way to get the system working
quickly and efficiently?

Do we need online forms? Do we need to provide technical assistance? Do we
need to create simple registration information? Do we need to ask the RALO
Secretariats to review their approach? What is it that needs to be done?


I don't see anything inherently wrong the ALAC/RALO/ALS system, in fact I
think it's a pretty logical approach. But if there are issues with making it
work, well then we should all be working together to sort them out.

One of the other great advantages to this system as well is that it actually
provides a structure through which to have conversations. This list, as
interesting and intriguing as it can be, will never replace a more linear
and structured approach to building consensus.

If the intended end result is real representation from the Internet
community in ICANN's processes, all the time spent arguing outside the
existing system is time wasted to my mind.

I'm hoping people will take this post in the spirit it is intended and not
feel the need to lecture, point or yell. 




Kieren


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance