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