Re: [atlarge-discuss] news from bucharest: at large existsagain

[Izumi AIZU <izumi@anr.org>]

Here's the draft of what I just said in the Public Forum in Bucharest.

izumi
---------------
As one of 7 elected members of interim panel of icannatlarge.com, but 
speaking only for
myself now, I like to point out the strong need for the recognition and 
implementation
of At-Large participatory structure by the Board which will lead the 
appropriate allocation
of decision-making position at the Board level to At-Large.

In some countries and cultures, without invitation or recognition, people 
will anyway
speak up and demand their interests be included in decision-making. In 
other parts of the
world however, it is more difficult to expect that to happen. They tend to 
wait. So if you
do not consciously "reach-out" to the users, individual and others, and 
provide adequate
incentives for participation and representation, ICANN will definitely 
become like an
ordinary trade association dominated by providers. I think that is not 
healthy and will
give harm to the providers themselves.

Finally, as we are working hard to self-organize the at-large members 
globally, I again
like to call for the formal adoption of At-Large participation mechanism 
and therefore
welcomes the idea of At-Large Advisory Committee as the first one small 
step for us
here now, but hope it to become the one giant leap for ICANN and all the 
players in
the long run globally.

At 16:10 02/06/27 +0300, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>At 27.06.2002 08:50, James Love wrote:
> >Vittorio, there is a big problem that you should mention.  The 
> Esther/Board version of the at-large is the exact opposite of what it 
> was.  Instead of the public electing their own leaders, now the ICANN 
> board will pick which members of the public can speak for the public.
>
>I think you get it wrong. The AC members will not be picked
>by the Board, but by organizations composed of Internet users.
>*IF* the Board should accept and implement such an ALAC at
>all. BTW, I believe it's good that these organizations (and
>e.g. their membership lists and resources like web sites and
>mailing lists) are not under the control of ICANN.
>
> >You know.  Like in the old USSR.   As you know, individual cannot join
> >the at large on their own,
>
>? Individuals can of course join these so-called At Large
>structures; that's the whole point of At Large!
>
> >and ICANN will decide which organizations can join,
> >and ICANN will decide who "really" represents user interests, and how.
>
>...unless there are good criteria for such organizations
>which can be applied neutrally.
>
>I'm not highly enthusiastic for the ALAC idea, to make that
>clear. But it *may* be a way the At Large could prove that it's
>not only discussing At Large itself, but also handle issues like
>Whois, new TLDs etc. and have a meaningful role in policy
>development. (Don't attack the messenger, please: I believe
>that the At Large can do that. Some Board members clearly
>don't.)
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
>For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de