[EURO-Discuss] List of nominations for Belgrade GA

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

May I express my appreciation to all those who have accepted to stand  
for election to the EURALO board at the forthcoming Annual Meeting in  
Belgrade.
I am however concerned about the manner in which EURALO appears to be  
reaching a conclusion on this matter.

Civil Society in general and the ICANN At Large in particular have not  
yet reached the threshold of participation and representation that  
would lend sufficient credibility to their necessary and worthy  
efforts in several international Internet fora. EURALO needs to  
continue to work on this, in terms of its membership, structures and  
representation. Although these concerns are - I think - shared among  
our membership, I wonder whether we all appreciate how much still  
needs to be done, particularly to establish the autonomy of At Large  
and ALAC with respect to ICANN.

In this context, it was - I suggest -  an error of judgment on the  
part of our elected ICANN Board member to have initiated his own  
"ticket" of candidates to the EURALO Board, whatever the merits of the  
individual candidates concerned. The At Large Board member is elected  
by ALAC and the RALO's, not vice-versa.
Furthermore, we thus give proof patent to our critics that At Large is  
a creature of ICANN. For instance, I would not expect that individual  
ICANN Board members would be intervening in the election of other  
Constituency or Supporting Organisations' councils, which in turn  
elect their ICANN Board members. There would be a conflict of  
interest, or at least a détournement. Should it ever be so, it would  
not be an example to be followed.

In this respect, for future reference, I would recommend that EURALO  
elections be conducted by a neutral election committee supported by  
the ICANN staff.

I would also recommend that candidates be nominated and seconded  
individually by member ALS's. Since EURALO wants to have larger  
numbers of ALS ("outreach") and greater participation from within  
member ALS ("inreach"), then I suggest that we could begin right here.  
Contrariwise, if the whole "ticket" is nominated internally, I can  
think of no better way of turning off the potential interest of  
newcomers. (And we need them, many.)

Finally, I would turn to our individual members. At this stage in the  
development of EURALO, I suggest that our individual members enjoy  
neither the representativity nor the mandate to act as officers of  
EURALO. Those individual members who wish to exercise a mandate in At  
Large - and thankfully there are some - should give priority to  
creating their corresponding ALS's, as provided for in the amended  
EURALO Statutes. Otherwise, yet again, EURALO and ALAC lay themselves  
open to the characterisation of a self-perpetuating group of ICANN  
insiders. None of us want that.

Needless to say, the above comments may not be taken as criticism of  
any of our members, candidates, officers or delegates.
This is about EURALO's process, and how it may be perceived both  
internally and externally. And about how it may be improved.

With my best regards to you all and best wishes for a successful  
meeting in Belgrade.

Christopher Wilkinson
ISOC-Belgium-Wallonia ALS


On 27 May 2011, at 12:14, Wolf Ludwig wrote: