If only we WERE actually engaged in that struggle. I read this thread with an increasingly recurring mix of amusement and exasperation.

So much needs to be done, so much research, so much reasoned analysis remains undone to reveal/prove how existing ICANN policies and operational modes harm the end-user and society in general. Yet here we are, with a thread more than 20 messages long and still counting, fretting over a non-controversial statement that might be too "aggressive", asking for substantiation that can be trivially found within the bylaws that define At-Large's role.

Forever the micro, never the macro. At-Large, still, focuses more on the need to be loved than speaking truth to power. And that is a dereliction of our duty.

Imploring us to "keep the conversation open" by speaking meekly is simply a plea to be satisfied with being invited to the dinner but kept at the children's table.

In fact, this strategy is harmful as it's counter-intuitive. The more we go with the flow and simply react to ICANN's existing agenda with tiny tweaks and wishful thinking -- the more we focus on the incremental rather than the substantive -- the more we convince the rest of ICANN of our irrelevance. Playing the existing game -- rather than unabashedly asserting what end-users need from ICANN -- is At-Large's express lane to being declared redundant, for indeed we are in our present state.

The case for two At-Large Board members (etc) is no different than it was when it was rejected after the ALAC review. The power imbalances are not only well-known, they're conscious and deliberate, and now we're being asked to burn volunteer resources to document it. And we meekly do what we're told, can't be too "aggressive" can we? Shameful. In the process of forever begging the rest of ICANN to deem us worthy of more than cosmetic representation, we have lost the will (if it ever existed) to actually do what the bylaws actually say we need to do.

- Evan