This report reviews the European regional election for an At-Large Directorship on the ICANN Board. What follows is an analysis of the process and procedures that led up to that election and defined the election itself.
Under the rules drafted by the Election Committee, all regional ballots were limited to seven candidates; in Europe's case, five of those seats were directly nominated by ICANN.
On the final ballot (member-nominated candidates included), three nominees (two of them member-nominated), were from Germany; the remaining four were from (respectively) France, Macedonia, Norway and Switzerland. Andy Müller-Maguhn, spokesperson for a German civil libertarian group, the Chaos Computer Club, won the election with almost 6,000 votes.
From data made available so far by ICANN, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the national distribution of European At-Large Members. Nor is it possible to reliably describe the ways in which national preferences influenced the overall voting behavior.
Our analysis of the At-Large Membership and the characteristics of the At-Large Election in Europe is based on the following research:
The At-Large elections were an experiment. Both their cross-border character and the fact that they were held on-line were new to Europe. Therefore it is difficult to identify the parameters and variables that can clarify its particularities. Yet with regard to Europe, the following contextual observations can be made:
An analysis of the use of the Internet across Europe indicates dramatic differences between Central European, Eastern European, Western European, and Mediterranean countries, with the West leading the way. [ 33 ] Obviously, this divide played an important role in the creation of an At-Large Membership within Europe.
For example, as of January 2001, only a quarter of Russians had ever used a computer and only a small percentage of those had ever used the Internet. [ 34 ] The size of the Russian At-Large membership (2,111), then, is more strongly tied to the extent of technological development and the proliferation of Internet usage than to the size of the country or its population (in Russia, 146,394,000 people).
However, the "digital divide" only partly explains variations in the distribution of European At-Large members. Germany's lead in At-Large registrations, for instance, may be an effect of Germany's role as a leading economic power in the region.
Nevertheless, comparison of registrations in the UK, France, Austria, Switzerland and Germany indicate a clear over-representation of German-speaking people. In European countries such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, where the rate of households using the Internet has reached 50 percent [ 35 ], the incidence of At-Large registration was significantly lower than in both Germany and France. For these countries, it seems that not only Internet usage rates but also public awareness of ICANN itself can affect the size of the At-Large membership.
The European Commission's latest survey of Internet use showed a 55% growth in Internet penetration in EU households, which rose from 18% in March 2000 to 28% in October 2000 [ 36 ], at the time of the At-Large Election. As Internet penetration continues to grow, participation in ICANN At-Large Membership is likely to increase.
In general, political traditions are considered important causal variables that explain electoral behavior. In most countries across Europe, voter turnout - the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote - is rather high (above fifty percent) during general elections. [ 37 ] Still, the sheer number of actions necessary for one to become an At-Large Member was expected by some to thin out less-interested participants, even to the extent of bringing about a high correlation between registration and actual voting. This does not seem to have been the case.
A number of factors may have contributed to the low turnout. Procedures used in the At-Large Elections, such as ballots, pre-registrations, member-nominations, are not widely used across Europe, where traditions of voter registration and of primary elections, used elsewhere, are unfamiliar. However, whether this had a major impact on electoral behavior within Europe remains unclear.
The single most important factor in decreasing participation might have been that the unfamiliarity of the PINs distributed via surface mail. It is likely that many who did not activate their PIN either were simply unaware of the need to do so, didn't receive their PIN, or missed the activation deadline. Other participants have cited confusion between the membership number, the password (which was received via email), and the PIN.
Finally, the unavailability of registration servers during daytime, when many potential voters accessed the site from their workplace, may have further depressed registration and activation rates.
A credible argument can be made that the combination of technical errors, delays, human errors and confusion reduced the number of registered, activated and eventually voting members. Still, such technical difficulties are ultimately a minor problem that can be overcome. They do not pose the same kind of problem as the more insidious causes of low registration discussed above.
Even though on-line elections are still in the experimental stage in Europe, they are becoming more common. For example, the "Forschungsgruppe Internetwahlen" based at the University of Osnabrück conducted the 1999 "Sozialwahlen". In this election, all German citizens were eligible to participate, though only 2% of Germans did so. Other European countries developing on-line voting systems have encountered similar obstacles. Nevertheless, future on-line elections for the European Parliament are being planned, and several research projects are under way.
Issue-based user communities played a major role in mobilizing At-Large members in some European countries. The uneven presence of these groups across Europe partly explains the distribution of members in the region. Most of those we contacted were unsurprised that the victorious candidate in 2000 was the spokesperson of an established hacked community, the Chaos Computer Club. The German Internet community is generally regarded as the largest and the most active one in Europe (measured in terms of online communities, ftp sites, open source developers and the like). Some members of the German community even attempted to extend their local election campaigns to other European countries - Most of these efforts met with failure, either because of a general lack of interest or because of assumed German predominance over them. The only successful effort at a Europe-wide forum integrating both At-Large members and candidates was the English-language mailing list icann-europe, founded by two members of FITUG, [ 38 ] a German online community. The role of German-language web cultures in the election may provide a potential model for the kind of education and constituency-building campaigns that could enhance future elections.
The national press in most European countries (see below) covered the election rather poorly, and as a result outreach efforts depended heavily on the efforts of local user communities. In some countries, such as Austria and Russia, such local-user networks proved to be quite effective. In Russia, for example, the community undertook to provide translation of information about the election to potential voters and to the general public.
The level of media attention contributed significantly to awareness about the At-Large election and consequently influenced the At-Large behavior strongly. Yet the coverage was mainly domestic, featuring chiefly local candidates.
The report of Alexander Svensson and others (University of Hamburg) on "ICANN Coverage in European Print Media" studied European media coverage of ICANN in the year 2000. A total of 310 articles appeared in high-circulation newspapers in the UK, Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark Norway, Sweden, Spain and Portugal. According to the report, in some countries (such as France, Germany and Italy) newspapers encouraged netizens to vote. Several newspapers in Switzerland, Italy and Germany covered local candidates.
By way of contrast, the media in the United Kingdom showed little interest in the elections. Another ICANN-related topic, the UDRP, did catch the interest of the British press. Also, in Scandinavia the elections attracted almost no attention although there was a Norwegian nominee.
Press coverage was significantly more robust elsewhere. Media attention in Germany was particularly high. According to the respondents from Austria and Switzerland, the German media hype had a measurable impact on all German speaking countries. On campaign in particular, initiated by the German Spiegel-Online, and mirrored by other papers and news agencies , featured the elections, and paid particular attention to certain candidates. Despite attempts by Spiegel-Online to encourage similar efforts by other online media in the region, only the online edition of Le Monde (France) and Der Standard (Austria) participated. As a result most At-Large members and most member-nominated candidates were German.
Nonetheless, the campaign's direct effects on membership registration might be exaggerated. The ICANN articles run by Spiegel Online didn't attract as many readers as other articles. Moreover the number of articles was reduced towards the end of the registration period when most of the registrations took place. However, the Spiegel Online campaign helped to raise awareness in Germany about ICANN and the elections.
An analysis of the European media coverage indicates that almost all media coverage of candidates was organized along national lines. Overall, candidates enjoyed little recognition in the voting public, and such recognition as they had was mostly confined to their own country. One very notable exception was Andy Müller-Maguhn, who, not least because of his image as an "ethical hacker", attracted considerable international attention. Such inherently nationalistic focus illustrates the difficulties of creating constituencies that lack well-set roots in local political traditions and language communities.
The At-Large Elections contributed strongly to the general awareness within Europe of Internet governance in general and of ICANN in particular. Prior to March-April 2000, Internet Governance and ICANN were an unknown issue in Europe and elsewhere. As a result of the elections, this has changed, though it has done so in an uneven fashion across national lines. As one respondent put it: "The elections had a tremendous impact on ICANN awareness. ICANN is much better known than its predecessor IANA ever was." This is especially true in Germany, where ICANN is now a well-known organization. "The elections have launched ICANN's decisions into the news and feature sections of newspapers and radio shows. The editors are now willing to provide more space for reports on ICANN. Also, it is not necessary anymore to explain over and over again what the ICANN process is about."
By the September 8 activation deadline, 23,442 Europeans had successfully activated their At-Large Memberships. Of these members, almost half actually voted (11,309) [ 39 ] (see graphic below) [ 40 ]. In comparison with the other regions, Europe had the highest overall turnout of registered voters (48,08%), albeit still low.
The average European At-Large Activated Member [ 41 ] was between 20 and 39 years old, either a student or professionally active in the Internet or Computer Software industry and male (statistics comparable to those seen in other regions). They heard about the elections mainly through e-mail, friends or magazines (with the exception of Germany, where most were mobilized by the media) and almost half of them (43,7 %) were domain-name holders.
Further analysis of ICANN's European At-Large Membership (see Appendix 2) indicates a widespread participation, with members representing 44 countries. The distribution of members, however, varied considerably: 28 countries have fewer than 100 At-Large Members. These figures reflect a digital divide, with, for example, a very low number of At-Large members in the Eastern European countries of Romania (39), Hungary (32), Czech Republic (28) and Slovakia (fourteen). As candidates could only encourage turnout and support efficiently within their national constituency, not across borders, local networks played a crucial role in mobilizing Internet users, which were hence mirrored by the number of self-nominations and registrations. Correspondingly those networks proved to be crucial for raising attention of the traditional press (newspapers) and the building of an Internet-related campaign.
The overwhelming majority of respondents expressed concerns with the way that ICANN handled technical problems, outreach, and the selection of candidates. A specific point of criticism was "the handling of the deadlines and the changing of rules on the fly" as ICANN moved towards the election. Nearly all of those contacted disapproved of the nominating committees' decision "to stuff the ballot with corporate candidates." Perhaps ironically, however, this may have resulted in an advantage for member-nominated candidates, who were seen as the more "democratic candidates."
While some respondents regarded the nomination process as basically fair, others portrayed the Nominating Committee's selection of five nominees for the European ballot as a violation of democratic principles. For only two seats to be open to member nomination in a region the size and diversity of Europe was seen as an unacceptable limitation of both regional and political diversity on the ballot. In the same vein, the Nominating Committee's selections were condemned as biased towards industry representatives. Many respondents felt that the candidates nominated by ICANN should have been subject to the same endorsement procedure as member-nominated candidates.
Many respondents expressed the need for better communication channels between candidates and voters on the one hand, and among At-Large members on the other. The lack of a Europe-wide outreach campaign and the absence of local public forums, some say, contributed considerably to the interest deficit in most European countries.
The Question & Answer forum provided by ICANN on members.icann.org as a means of communication for voters and candidates received mixed assessments. Some regarded it as a useful means for voter education. Others criticized the lack of opportunities for "horizontal" communication within the At-Large membership. In fact, unless voters created discussion forums themselves, there were no opportunities for internal debate.
As is discussed above, nearly all respondents mentioned problems with PIN codes. In some countries, PINs arrived too late to be useful. In almost all countries, at least some PINs were lost entirely. Additionally, ICANN's expectation that users would keep PIN codes for up to 6 months caused problems. Some suggested the use of digital signatures as a possible solution to this problem.
Many respondents also cited their concern over technical problems towards the end of the member registration period. Surprisingly though, many of the respondents cast such problems as relatively minor, capable of being solved easily.
Some respondents further claimed that the very fact that the election was held entirely on-line may have limited the participation of some (mainly low-bandwidth) users.
In addition, many respondents found the election procedure too complicated. Many potential voters lost interest during the several stages of membership registration, membership activation, endorsement period and the actual voting.
Finally, many voters do not seem to have been familiar with elections divided into multiple stages. The fact that the election took place during the summer and vacation period compounded this problem.
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 community as a whole. 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 communication with the electorate self-organized in an extremely ad hoc manner, viewing such organization as ultimately less effective than more structured approaches. 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 promoting 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. These participants 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. 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.
Many respondents strongly advocated for an extensive review of the operating procedures of both the ICANN Board, staff, and Supporting Organization structure. There was strong feeling that both 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.
| 2.2.2. Asia and Pacific Region | 2.2.4 Latin America |
© 2001 NAISProject.org
Privacy Policy
webmaster@naisproject.org