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

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

My comments follow beneath:

----- Original Message -----
From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>

Richard:
>>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

Vittorio:
>I think that our representatives in the ALOC should report the view
>that our membership supports. They should not decide what to say or to
>do inside the ALOC by themselves.

Richard:
Agreed, Vittorio. But how do we ascertain what our membership supports?
Do we take a vote on issues like this?
Do we just guess?

Maybe we should have a collection of proposed and seconded questions
which gets sent to members once every 3 months, for them to vote on, so
we have a clearer view of what members' views actually are.

My concern is that our organisation may be drawn into an ICANN process
which promotes the very top-down non-democratic processes I thought we
all opposed, and that we could end up being part of what ICANN then presents
to the world as a legitimate At Large initiative.

So yes, I think Sotiris and Satyajit should robustly defend the principle of
democratic representation at ALAC, and insist on groups like ours' right
to organise the At Large movement ourselves, rather than any rubbish like
nominating committees, ICANN defining the process etc etc

In the absence of a membership vote on these kind of issues, I think Sotiris
and
Satyajit have to form an intelligent opinion for themselves about what to
demand
from an ALAC

I do not think that we exist as an organisation to endorse an ICANN process
that
strips away democratically elected At Large Board members and then replaces
them
with a powerless 'advisory' sham

ALAC can only have legitimacy if At Large members can elect their own
committee,
define their own organisation, and organise the At Large on their own terms.

So the issue should not be:
What are ICANN's terms.
The issue should be:
What are our terms.

We must not endorse a process that ICANN wants on its own terms, in order to
replace
elected representatives of At Large on the Board, with a sham and mockery
which they
can then sell to DoC as a legitimate At Large effort.

Richard Henderson



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