On 28 March 2010 01:43, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote: In my (admittedly biased) view the only way to change the lack of trust and
the issues raised by parts of the community in terms of ICANN's A & T record is to be part of, and work in a system that allows FOR change and improvement;
May be, but things have already been off to a rough start, regarding trust, as far as I'm concerned. Four committee members from GAC, four from GNSO, three from ccNSO, just one from ALAC. For all the private kind words and public bluster from the top about the value of At-Large, the Board still doesn't trust us as a full participant. The contracted parties (half of GNSO) have more representation at table than the organ that ICANN has itself entrusted to speak for the Internet user worldwide. Issues that At-Large has identified such as the secrecy of ICANN's regional meetings, are almost guaranteed to be shunted aside, as those within ICANN who benefit from the secrecy have double our voice. This has happened too often to be a coincidence. Three times within the last year, (the At-Large board seat allocation, the STI trademark issues review and now this) the final allocation for ALAC on major committees has been half of what was originally proposed, without other constituencies being similarly cut down. Those looking for conspiracy theories have much from which to feed. In closing (and I suspect this won't be the last time I say or type
this with reference to the A&T-RT) "we can but try"... And as I try my best in this role, I trust you will be part of the community At-Large, that guides and assists me...
I will remain hopeful. One seat is better than none, so at least we are *at* the table. And we couldn't have a better representative. Still, there is an awful lot within ICANN that a transparency review team needs to address. And I was hoping for more confidence from the Board in At-Large's willingness to fulfill the role assigned it. - Evan