Dominik and all, Well argued and articulated here Dominik. Same for Danny's original response. Evan, at least in America we don't have riots at nearly every soccer game. I am quite sure Danny was not speeking only as an American or with the same view of an American. Personally as one who represents as spokesman for users in over 100 countries, your anti-American bias is understood, but not largely shared by our members. I hope in the future you will obtain a more ballanced attitude. But also let me be clear that indeed there is much room for improvement from my country towards other peoples of the world, and conversly there is just as much if not more of those that spew hateful words and tone towards my fellow countrymen/women and government. -----Original Message-----
From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> Sent: Jun 6, 2008 1:01 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Who's ashamed?
Evan,
Please read my remarks below...
At-Large is meant to be the home of individuals, but not simply the handful of elitist, baggage-laden, largely-American noisemakers that Danny falsely believes speak for the "public at large".
Do you see the five points enumerated by Danny elitistic and sort of romanticized vision? You then perhaps want to get rid the Board as a whole and replace it by a brand new structure where the wide community voice would be inherently reflected (in votes) in a fully transparent manner. I would second it. Just please explain how this could be feasible.
At-Large is for everyone else -- the consumers of the Internet, so to speak, who generally don't own domains but are greatly affected by their allocation and use. To do this, the current ALS infrastructure is designed to get as many people as possible involved -- or at least aware -- through membership organizations that don't nominally have Internet policy as a mandate. Computer user groups, free speech advocates, community co-operatives, consumer groups and others from everywhere on Earth all have a role to play here. Personally I believe that maximizing public involvement through otherwise-ambivalent public groups was a smart -- bordering on brilliant -- idea. It strives to reserve a corner of the ICANN process for those who were not self-described policymakers and to whom ICANN has been inaccessible to date.
Great vision, indeed. I fully agree. Just one weak point out here. All this effort can be spoiled in a minute by a vote of few unaccounatble individuals whose the only interest is to stuff the pockets. And this negligible detail turns the whole great vision into a fairy tail.
Danny's romantic vision of At-Large is, in fact, a repudiation of this objective. The ALS structure is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing this, though one can certainly take issue with the quality of execution.
No, it is not a repudiation. But without the representative voting power the ALS is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing a persuasive cover-up to the outside world.
Of course, ALAC doesn't have a Board vote, so this one is not really fulfilled. We can wait and see how the ALAC review group handles that one.
So far so very good. The problem is in the words "wait and see". I'll tell you how the ALAC will handle that one. Exactly the same way as it did in domain tasting. You will be persuaded of not feasibility of a stronger solution and you'll finally back off.
Indeed, it is his view of At-Large that is grossly perverted, and must be avoided.
Ah, now I fully understand.
There is a process -- long and drawn out it may be -- and we are following it. I would be the first to argue that until now ALAC has lacked either the maturity or the mandate to deserve a Board vote. While the maturation process still has far to go, the environment has improved by leaps and bounds since my ALS got involved.
Correct. And I hope you'll find some of my observations helpful in achieving this goal.
I am certainly not ashamed of my role in At-Large; indeed, I believe most of the current members of ALAC and At-Large deserve praise for their perseverance at working to achieve a most difficult task. Given that At-Large should not be dominated by self-styled experts who create policy in their bedrooms, I'd say it's doing reasonably well. The new allocation of staff will help provide badly needed resources to a group of volunteers, most of whose day jobs take us far away from Internet policy.
Certainly not. And I do believe too that many people are doing good job. They just perhaps do not fully realize that waiting and seeing might be sort of naïve expectations.
Nevertheless, the litmus test is the upcoming bringing of the GNSO improvements into life. This step will no doubt be significant in revealing the further direction. Let's see what is going to happen.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 6:07 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Who's ashamed?
Danny Younger wrote:
The real problem, of course, is the current perverted definition of the at-large.
Ah, back to that old romantic vision... at least you're persistent, no matter how sad and tired the crusade.
Since early 1999 the operative definition was "At-large membership should primarily represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs)." -- see the Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) documents.
So far so good.
As non-commercial organizations are represented within the SOs, namely by way of the NCUC, they are, by definition, not the at-large (which is supposed to be primarily the home of individuals).
Let's stop there.
At-Large is meant to be the home of individuals, but not simply the handful of elitist, baggage-laden, largely-American noisemakers that Danny falsely believes speak for the "public at large".
NCUC is the rightful place for academia, and for organizations and people actively involved in making Internet policy as part of their mandate. At-Large is for everyone else -- the consumers of the Internet, so to speak, who generally don't own domains but are greatly affected by their allocation and use. To do this, the current ALS infrastructure is designed to get as many people as possible involved -- or at least aware -- through membership organizations that don't nominally have Internet policy as a mandate. Computer user groups, free speech advocates, community co-operatives, consumer groups and others from everywhere on Earth all have a role to play here. Personally I believe that maximizing public involvement through otherwise-ambivalent public groups was a smart -- bordering on brilliant -- idea. It strives to reserve a corner of the ICANN process for those who were not self-described policymakers and to whom ICANN has been inaccessible to date. The voice of the global public goes far beyond the elitist cadre that forms the core of Danny's tragically romanticized vision.
The extra level of indirection -- ALSs -- between ICANN and the public allows various core individuals to help drive the process, supported by ICANN but ultimately charged with helping to build a grassroots that simply could never happen under Danny's model.
Indeed, it is his view of At-Large that is grossly perverted, and must be avoided.
"The goals of the at-large membership are as follows: (a) to include any Internet user with access and verifiable identity in order to reflect the global diversity of users (membership should not be limited to IP address or domain name holders), We got that. As At-Large matures it will even get beyond its current concentrations of ISOC chapters and attract more groups such as Consumers Union. Not only should At-Large not be limited to domain name holders, it is in our interests -- to keep to the vision -- that the vast majority of At-Large is comprised of those who do not own domains.
(b) to elect Directors to the ICANN Board by procedures that are valid and authentic,
"Valid and authentic" is in the eye of the beholder. Danny wants a return to elitism, I want to broaden the base exactly to give the At-Large voice more validity. It is no surprise that, in other mail, Danny has defended the NomComm and attacked outreach initiatives; his vision actually *fears* greater public involvement and accountability.
Of course, ALAC doesn't have a Board vote, so this one is not really fulfilled. We can wait and see how the ALAC review group handles that one.
(c) to ensure that ICANN s corporate structure operates for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, is not captured, and continues to provide fair and proportional representation of the entire user community,
Danny's romantic vision of At-Large is, in fact, a repudiation of this objective. The ALS structure is actually ICANN's best shot at accomplishing this, though one can certainly take issue with the quality of execution.
(d) to provide input from the user community to the ICANN Directors and
We do that now. Wendy's success in getting approval in principle for the Summit is only one recent example. Of course a Board vote (or, IMO more than one vote) would be better.
(e) to do so in a cost-efficient manner."
The effort to engage an otherwise-disinterested public comes with an expense; for that I make no apology. Otherwise all you hear are the noisemakers who think they have all the answers but certainly do not represent the global public POV.
So, what steps has your "pretend At-Large" taken to secure voting representation on the ICANN Board of Directors?
Don't know about anyone else, but I had a very prepared and thought-out submission (actually, more than one) to the ALAC review. Not sure what else we are expected to do ... stage sit-ins? Boycott IPv6? Deface websites? Write angry emails with a hundred Ccs that all get ignored?
There is a process -- long and drawn out it may be -- and we are following it. I would be the first to argue that until now ALAC has lacked either the maturity or the mandate to deserve a Board vote. While the maturation process still has far to go, the environment has improved by leaps and bounds since my ALS got involved.
It's pathetic, and an insult to every At-Large member that voted in the earlier global elections. You should all be ashamed.
I am certainly not ashamed of my role in At-Large; indeed, I believe most of the current members of ALAC and At-Large deserve praise for their perseverance at working to achieve a most difficult task. Given that At-Large should not be dominated by self-styled experts who create policy in their bedrooms, I'd say it's doing reasonably well. The new allocation of staff will help provide badly needed resources to a group of volunteers, most of whose day jobs take us far away from Internet policy.
And we get to do this all in the face of virtual rock-throwers, of saboteurs from within who claim we're irrelevant yet still insist on engaging us. Such distractions are annoying, but must not deter achievement of the vision that the current ALS/RALO/ALAC structure is well capable to deliver.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827