Re: [atlarge-discuss] My rough proposals for the ALAC

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Vittorio: Of course we have intermediate alternatives - for example, we can
recommend a fully elective composition of the ALAC, and see how the
ERC reacts; it might not be a bad idea. We should also think at some
ideas about identity verification mechanisms.

Richard: I agree with this.

Vittorio: However, I think we also have to
understand the present scenario, and, if we want to participate in
this process, we have to draft a proposal which has hopes to be
accepted by the present Board, and to fit in the Blueprint, that has
been de facto approved in its skeleton by the Board in Bucharest.

Richard: I do not agree with this. We can participate in the process, but
we should say what we think, not what we think others want us to think.
We should be true to our belief in democratic representation of users.
If others disagree, then so be it. We can still participate, but we mustn't
bend over backwards and abandon principles, just to stay in the loop.
Remember - ALAC is ICANN's agenda, not ours.

Vittorio: So, there are three major options for choosing the members of the
ALAC:
1) having them appointed by the NomCom

Richard: Totally unacceptable

Vittorio:
2) having them appointed by a list of accredited "At Large Structures"
or organizations, one each (ie the ALOC model)

Richard: Not acceptable because ICANN will just invite sufficient
sympathetic
supporting groups to gain a controlling majority

Vittorio:
3) having them elected online by a membership

Richard: Yes. This is what we stand for, isn't it? And I agree with your
proposals for an external-to-ICANN membership, made up of User Groups
like ours, each of which agrees to verify membership lists (maybe through a
trusted watchdog), and who collectively vote for the democratic
representatives
on the ALAC. As you say, this sows the seed of democracy within ICANN,
demonstrates that democratically-elected Board members will be a
possibility,
and highlights exactly the process that ICANN has taken away from us.

I admire your willingness to listen, engage diplomatically and persuade,
Vittorio.
However, ICANN will use that to its own ends if you are not careful, slowly
and
cunningly "drifting" you away into something harmless to their powerbase,
and will
even use your compromised participation as a demonstration of their openness
and
empowering of the At Large. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You know and I know that they are concerned purely with their own agenda,
and
that they will do anything to exclude alternative and challenging voices
from their Board.
Therefore, our strength lies in a resounding, loud, clear, uncompromised
demand
for democratic representation at every layer of ICANN. The Internet is a
world
resource, belonging to millions and millions of users. It does not belong to
ICANN.
Until the millions of users have the opportunity of true representation in
the way THEIR
Internet is administered, they are disenfranchised by a small clique who
will try to retain
power and control at all costs.

To a certain extent, I can see why the US Govt finds this "retention of
power" attractive:
ICANN is controllable, and working with a small clique is easier than
unleashing the free
market of worldwide democratic forces, or surrendering control to all kinds
of foreign
governments.

However, there is increasing foreign/international concern over US
hegemony - as witnessed
by the unusually negative tone of GAC at Bucharest - and if the US really
wants to retain
ICANN it may well decide that only full involvement of the user constituency
will satisfy
the International community : otherwise, there may well be a drift towards
challenging US
control, calling for UN oversight etc etc. Some member countries of the EU
are challenging
the US status quo. It will increasingly be in the vested interests of the US
administration
to have an involved User participation, so they can say: "Look. See. There
is indeed
international participation here, inside of ICANN" (which they would still
oversee).

So I believe in pressing the case for democratic representation of users at
all levels of
ICANN (and certainly at ALAC level) : because although ICANN has abolished
this
kind of election, the pressure for it will continue to grow, in the face of
the EU, in the face
of challenges to US control - and our principles will in my opinion
ultimately act in the best
interests of the US Govt AND the user community.

I take the view that ICANN (and "our" Internet) should be independent of
governments
and their potential censorship - while at the same time being accountable
for its actions, both to
representatives of governments, AND to the millions of users who build this
resource and
make it what it is.

So Vittorio, you should not compromise away the central principle that the
At Large
Advisory Committee should be elected by the members of its various
constituent
organisations (like ours). I hope Sotiris and Satyajit will take a robust
line on this,
because At Large membership has a right to decide for itself how it
organises : it should
not have a process imposed upon it.

Richard Henderson




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