Hi Evan, 

Thanks for the information. 

I looked at the ICAO's Roster of Experts, but I'm not sure it's comparable to the mix of stakeholders found in ICANN. If I understand correctly, anyone can apply, but there's a selection criteria that controls acceptance into that community ... experts only. I personally find the inclusiveness of ICANN to be good, although it also comes with challenges of coordination and education. The challenges of coordination and education seem to be inevitable given the scale of a global Internet.  

I note that you said "I believe that the At-Large Community has been ineffective at what it was designed to do". Can I ask you for clarification? As I understand it, the  ICANN At-Large Community supports ICANN's mission, commitments and core values defined in ICANN Bylaws Article 1. Is this what you're referring to when you talk about the design of At-Large, or am I missing something more detailed in other At-Large documents? 

By the way, you're right about what you said that At-Large does not have "board representation" within ICANN. That was my mistake. I should not have used the words "Board level representation", since the role of Board Governance is not the same as Representational Democracy. All Board members (including all ICANN Board members) have a fiduciary "duty of loyalty" and "duty of care" to the corporation which is different from public-interest representation. Sorry for the confusion, eh. :-)

Cheers
David

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:01 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Oh, and one other thing, significant enough that it merits an addendum:

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 7:51 AM David Mackey via NA-Discuss <na-discuss@icann.org> wrote:
 

Is there an ICANN At-Large equivalent component that has board level representation at ICAO/IATA? 


It is worth reminding at this time that At-Large does **NOT** have Board representation within ICANN. Never did.

ALAC gets to send someone. Once that person is seated, they are sworn by ICANN's lawyers to explicitly disavow representing the constituency that sent them, and to only consider the interests of ICANN-the-entity.
I refer you to this slide presentation, and specifically slide #9. Could not possibly be more clear.

In other words, I would most definitely not want public-interest representation in any future Internet governance body, multilateral or multistakeholder or multi-anything, to resemble the crippled At-Large voice within ICANN.
This is not a feature worth boasting about.

Cheers,
Evan