Most Europeans seem generally satisfied with the At-Large Election, not least because it was the first election ever on a global scale, and because of its apparent success in electing competent Directors accepted by the majority of the community.
Those who do consider the elections a failure refer to the low degree of participation: "The fact that the mandate was manifestly insufficient for representative legitimacy has reinforced the prejudices of skeptical commentators who doubt that democratic Internet governance is possible." Low participation is a matter of concern for many in Europe who observed or participated in the election. However, as some suggest national elections might be the wrong benchmark to assess the success of global elections on the Net for ICANN.
Yet, as seen above, there was significant criticism about ICANN's handling of various components of the election. The elections are generally seen as an experiment that, in a sense, fell victim to its own success as the At-Large elections attracted much more participants than originally expected. In particular, interviewees felt that ICANN's insufficient handling of both technical problems and outreach campaigning constituted solvable start-up problems, and expressed a strong hope that they could be avoided in the future.
The significant role of German voters throughout the At-Large Election was a result of the convergence of significant media coverage with the activism of a well-established user communities. Germany's success provides strong evidence for the importance of public outreach and debate.
Some of those interviewed blamed ICANN for the fact that its communication with the electorate was organized in an ad hoc manner. In addition, the use of English as ICANN's working language, combined with the lack of adequate translation, was considered as a major barrier to enabling the kind of activated membership that many had hoped to see. Nevertheless, the At-Large Election clearly contributed to the general awareness of Internet Governance in general and ICANN in particular throughout Europe.
In addition, the telecommunications divide between Eastern and Western Europe and the Mediterranean nations was reflected in membership patterns across Europe. High Internet use and awareness frequently correlated with a higher rate of At-Large membership, suggesting that a renewed effort is needed to make some of Europe's less technology advanced countries active members of the ICANN community.
Europe has a strong tradition of diversity among its regions and cultures. ICANN's request that the region select a single voice for its collective interest was perceived by some as regressive and generally undesirable. Consequently, calls were made for a greater level of regional participation within the At-Large membership. There was a sense that if ICANN is ever to achieve global legitimacy, it must do better at taking the different interests and needs of Europe into account.
Some respondents strongly emphasized the need for a new election to fill the four vacant board seats: "The feeling of most At-Large members is that if this [the election of the missing four At-Large directors] is not going to happen, this would be a theft." Others, however, suggest that if an election is not held in the near future, the Board's vacant seats should be filled by representatives of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), as ultimately accountable representatives of national interest.
Overall there seems to be some uncertainty in the European community surrounding the possibility of alternative methods of selecting At-Large Directors. Some observers have claimed that a single Director cannot reasonably or equitably represent a region of the size of Europe. Critics with this perspective are uncomfortable with the five-region geographic model, calling instead for some intermediate structure that would better reflect the specific interests of each country. Others suggested that At-Large directors could be elected by national representatives, through a model including some form of At-Large council, either on a regional or a global level. For example, a global council could fill the remaining At-Large Directorships from a list of nominations put forth by its members. Other suggestions included some kind of regional thresholds for elections, so that results coming from countries with many At-Large-Members would be balanced somehow with the votes of smaller Internet communities.
Many interviewees agree that a comprehensive review of ICANN's overall representation structure is sorely needed. The occasional forums for debate seen so far seem to be only an insufficient means of participation, since there does not yet appear to be any strong connection between such forums and the board's decision process. Respondents felt that, in light of the significant impact that ICANN's decisions have on areas of direct concern to all users, individual users should have the opportunity to participate in ICANN's decision-making processes. Arguments were presented for strengthening the At-Large membership and/or the GAC, relative to the Supporting Organizations. There was also a strong feeling that the ICANN Board and the Supporting Organizations would benefit from a reassertion of their commitment to transparent and accountable bottom-up processes. The working structure of the DNSO and the composition of the Names Council are of specific concern. Moreover, a stronger international composition of the staff and a greater respect and support for languages other than English were high priorities.
| 2.2.3.2.3.3 Problems in voter verification | 2.2.4 Latin America |
© 2001 NAISProject.org
Privacy Policy
webmaster@naisproject.org