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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

  I agree with Richard whole heatedly here!  Well done again here Richard!

Richard Henderson wrote:

> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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