Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:45:44 -0500, you wrote:

>First, let's not forget that ICANN has no future without an At Large to
>which significant numbers of existing At Large Activists can be delivered.
>Without that, it cannot support any claim to be fulfilling its core mission
>and ultimately will collapse.

...and likely be replaced by the ITU, an intergovernmental
organization that knowingly gives the public voting powers and broad
ways to participate. Would that be an achievement for us?

So I agree with most of your views, but not with the strategy you seem
to devise to get them realized.

And by the way:

>Instead of fostering real public participation by throwing the door open to
>all groups and individuals, which is the way the At large was originally
>intended to be, instead, the ALAC is proposing to draw key players from a
>community already dominated by hand picked representatives.

Please document this statement. What did the ALAC propose and where?

>Yet, if I understand this correctly, ICANN will not
>be overseeing the internal procedures of any of these external organizations
>directly. That means no oversight for ensuring proper democratic procedures
>take place within the RALOs, and no enforcement.

So, if ICANN manages the At Large directly, it is trying to take
control of it, and if it does not, it is not controlling it enough.
What are you proposing then?

>In the current vision, ICANN neatly removes itself from any direct
>responsibility for an At Large voting process of any kind.

Yes.

But this has the great advantage that ICANN (whose current Board is
openly against online elections) also removes itself from having any
word about how that voting process may happen. And it was the only way
we could let the current Board accept *any* At Large voting process or
direct representation.

But this also means that now you have to actually get your hands dirty
and do something more than writing articles, as many of us have been
doing on their time and at their expense for months now.

>While the At Large is still generally perceived as crucial, banishing it
>altogether is not an option for ICANN. Consequently, the At Large does not
>have to agree to such a one-sided agreement and even now, users have the
>choice to stand their ground and insist on ICANN support for a more
>meaningful At Large Structure.

Oh well, insist. Stand up, stop breathing and start crying until your
mom will come and protect you from the baddies. But I fear that the
last years prove that there's no "mom" that will come to save you.
Certainly not the US DoC. Certainly not the ITU or the UN. It's year
2003, the world is ruled by governments and corporations, and you have
to use your elbows, your smile, your creativity and your tenacity to
get some space for the common citizens.
-- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html