Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

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

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:49:35 -0500, you wrote:

>> ...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?
>
>Vittorio,
>Public voting powers and broad ways to participate would be a vast
>improvement on what we have now, a cartel that is taking users to the
>cleaners.

My sentence was sarcastic - currently participation in ITU is almost
completely made by telco businesses and governments (though this might
actually change, and that would of course change my judgement too).

>Meanwhile, the ALAC door is wide open for allegations of nepotism, which is
>the price ICANN pays for appointing representatives, rather than electing
>them,

2/3 of the ALAC are going to be elected as soon as the RALOs will be
formed.

>The At Large's best interests are best served by ICANN repeating worldwide
>elections, to establish RALOs if that's the way ICANN wants it to work. In
>return, it seems a reasonable request to enter into an MoU with ICANN,
>whereby the RALO's would give up their autonomy. However, if no meaningful
>help is forthcoming from ICANN, then why would the At Large want to give up
>it's autonomy?

The RALOs are not giving up their autonomy. It will be their judgement
whether to sign the MoU, and I guess a negotiation will happen until
both parts are happy.

>This is not a trivial issue, it's a deal breaker and while unresolved, the
>natural evolution for the At Large is, and will continue to be as a group of
>heterarchies, without any central leader, and operating outside of ICANN.
>That's not a bad situation to be in. Losing autonomy and getting nothing in
>return is worse.

I don't agree. "A group of heterarchies without any central leader"
means that whoever wants to say that "the At Large supports this idea"
will possibly be able to find and hand-pick at least one organization
which will say exactly that, and to disregard the others. It is
exactly the fact that you have a coordination and confrontation
mechanism, through which you can come to a position which has a
majority (if not unanimity) support among the users community, that
allows you to state things with undeniable clarity.

By the way, I didn't mean to be rude to you, but I wanted to make it
very clear that, in my opinion, the strategy you propose is not going
to produce anything good for the At Large.

>You tell me what each At Large group will get from an MoU that a) is worth
>giving up autonomy and b) it can't live without?

If it will not get enough or if it will be asked too much in exchange
for what it gets, it won't sign it and it won't join the RALOs. It is
as simple as that.
-- 
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