Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Jean, I think you've mixed up descriptors here and the result is likely to give people an incorrect understanding as a consequence.
Well, you've both confused me. :-P I was under the impression that the RALO structure was supposed to allow _the_ means for participation of the at-large community. It (supposedly) includes provisions for structures, and for individuals who don't belong to any such structures. (Haven't we just been blowing our collective brains out trying to derive the best way to do this?)
At-Large and ALAC are not interchangeable. At-Large and ICANN Staff are not interchangeable, either.
This of course begs the question of how and why there is an at-large infrastructure in ICANN separate from ALAC. How can this _not_ be seen a utterly redundant? If the "ICANN At-large" mechanism offers a process through which individuals may have a consultative voice, what the heck is the reason for all of _our_ thrashing around on this issue? Why are these separate budget and structural items? If the RALOs select the members of ALAC, why isn't this integrated? And why do ICANN staff have the authority to veto an explicit democraticly-made requests from ALAC? If the ALAC is supposed to serve the interests of the At-Large community, I can understand it making advice to the Board that may be considered and rejected -- but I don't understand why staff have the ability to reject ALAC's mandate. Or maybe the answer is dead simple and I've just read it wrong. This comes across to me like one of those areas in which the long-time participants here and ICANN staff seem to know some sort of secret handshake that the newcomers need to learn over time. - Evan