[ALAC] [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?

[Roberto Gaetano]

Beau,

> 
> By the way, is it true what I heard that the three newly 
> appointed GNSO people have now been hard-wired in to two-year 
> terms? I don't really see a constituency model working under 
> those circumstances. Who's going to join a constituency if 
> they have to wait two years to be able to directly elect a 
> representative? No consumer group I am aware of is going to 
> want to do that.


I think that we will need to clarify many things in Seoul, one of which is
the reason for certain decisions of the SIC.

For instance, the SIC has decided, after long discussion, not to have an
automatic link between creation of a constituency and establishment of a
seat in the Council. The reasons against this position include what you
correctly point out, i.e. that it will be more difficult to get people's
interest if there's no immediate representation in terms of voting rights.
However, there are also reasons for taking this approach. One of these is
that we have to avoid the "frivolous" creation of constituencies for the
simple purpose of getting a vote. A bit like create empty shells as
registrars to have a higher firing power for getting valuable names. Another
observation is that in the "old" council it was exactly the fact that the
creation of a new constituency would have altered the voting balance that de
facto prevented the creation of any new constituency in 10 years.

But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of constituency,
against the open opposition of NCUC, but to keep it without an automatic
voting power, against the obvious concerns of who wants to build new
constituencies, is the leit-motiv that has guided the whole process of the
review: move the focus away from the vote, which is by its nature divisive,
onto the consensus building process.
New constituencies will not have the right to appoint their "own"
councillors, but will have the right to participate in WGs and other policy
making processes and bodies, will have support from ICANN staff and
resources to self-organize, will be able to participate with their own
representatives in the Executive Committee of the NCSG, etc.
In simple words, what we have tried to do is to create a balance and
hopefully a possible way to coexist and, in time, to collaborate, for all
the different components of the wide and diverse non-commercial internet
community. Somebody on this list has spoken about "reconsideration" of the
Board's decision. This is surely possible. But what I would propose is to
try to discuss and understand if what the SIC has proposed can work in
practice, although it is not going to be perfect for anybody, before
shooting it down and start all over again. This discussion is for me one of
the main priorities, if not the first priority altogether, in Seoul, which
as you all know will mark the end of my term as Director.

The ALAC and the NCUC are two big parts of this picture, the only organized
bodies in ICANN so far (for non-commercial users), I personally think that
the first step can be to have a joint discussion in Seoul. Bill's proposal
of meeting in an event that is not only work, but also social, goes in this
sense, methinks.

Cheers,
Roberto