[ga] The sweet song of a bird [was IPC on ALAC]

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 20:52 18/09/02, kent@songbird.com said:
> > Thus, an At Large membership can never be representative "of
> > the range of individual Internet users".
>
>Thanks for that very succinct and clear statement of the fundamental
>problem with the idea of an At Large membership.  I've been trying to
>say it for a long time, and I'm very glad to see that you have come
>with such a clear description of the problem.  :-)
>
> > I assume the IPC is aware of this.  Why then does the IPC repeat this
> > misconception again and again?
>
>Acutally, I'm quite sure that the IPC is very well aware of this.
>However, there is such a cacaphony of voices shouting about
>"representation" that it is easy to fall into the trap of responding in
>the same vein.
>
>Happens to me all the time. :-)

the sweet song of Kent's bird in the representation cacophony has just 
missed one single small point: who is ICANN representing?

ICANN community = 19 Board Members plus a few Staff + paid lawyers + Kent

BC = may be 25 people
IPC = 180 ?
NCDNHC = 200 ?
GA = 300 ?
Atlarge = 1003

when you consider that some are there twice, let say there are 1200 non 
paid stakeholders. The rest is paid, on duty or on business.

Is ICANN representing something important here: the USG at least?
ICANN purchased the IANA functions for less that $10.000 from the USG. Not 
a big issue.

>Now that you have given such a clear statement of the fundamental
>problem, perhaps we can all avoid that trap.

ThatTrap is a better than ICANN.2 - Joanna we got you a name: th@trap@large 
....