Hello, Jeanette.
What still amazes me though is that the At Large Membership doesn't provide "a home" for individual Internet users. No doubt, they are affected by ICANN's policies but they have no direct means to articulate their interests and concerns, unless they join an ALS, of course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large group out there on the net. Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN structures and processes? Do you think things will stay like this or do you expect them to change some time in the future? Speaking personally and not in my capacity as NARALO Chair:
I agree fully and passionately with the ICANN _intent_ behind At-Large, which is to try to extract the view of the general public on its issues. So far it has heard from vested interests (the business, IP, registry and registrar communities) as well as those who are paid full time to think about policy (GAC, NCUC). At-Large is none of that; while I believe that the "public interest" is the single most important constituency within ICANN, determining what is the public interest is a HUGE challenge that At-Large has tried to do. Small steps have been taken but far more lies ahead. So far, all the individuals who I have seen become involved in At-Large are dedicated to knowing the issues, good at analysis, passionate about policy, and vocal with their opinions. In other words, they have nothing in common with the general public At Large. You only see them as a "large group" because they are the ones already in front of you, shouting. The silent disinterested ones, the challenges that we must reach, outnumber the current loud independents by hundreds of thousands to one. The "independent users" are critical in policy building and opinion-shaping, but they do not themselves resemble the great disinterested masses that ICANN is trying to reach. These people _should_ be in leadership or advocacy efforts within larger groups in order to help achieve ICANN's mandate and affect / survey the greatest number of public opinions. Having them sit as independents is IMO a substantial waste of their talent. For this reason, I appreciate measures that discourage independent participation and encourage individuals to join (or create!) ALSs that can share their skill and passion with a wider audience. (NOTE: I said discourage, not disallow). There are certainly many existing organizations that SHOULD be ALSs but have neither the awareness or passion to be involved. The right person within those orgs could easily change that situation and our individual members are perfect candidates. Economies of scale -- in terms of volunteer person-hours even more than money -- suggest that we need more ALSs reaching the disinterested far more than we need to encourage the growth of "audiences of one". I can say more, but I need to go out. I hope you're not sorry that you asked. ;-) - Evan