Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft - At-Large Structures

[James Love <james.love@cptech.org>]

Esther Dyson wrote:
> as I understand it, At-Large Structures means groups that have specific 
> interest in ICANN's activities (and meet certain criteria), rather than 
> user organizations in general.  It is indeed a clumsy term, but it has a 
> precise meaning.

    At-large "structures" was an attempt to bury the idea of individual 
membership or voting, and if you want a dishonest and confusing label to 
undermine real at-large organizing efforts, it works.   If you want to run 
the "Company union" (as one board member has called it), then fine.  But it 
is to me an offensive effort to confuse the public about real democratic 
organizing efforts.  I wouldn't be so offended if a more accurate and honest 
term was used.  It is as if you want the powers were given based upon a 
promise to have a real at-large, but just decided to redefine bottom up 
democracy as top down non-democracy, and hoped that DoC (and others) would 
not notice.

Jamie



> 
> Esther
> 
> 
> 
> At 08:57 AM 7/25/2002, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:04:35 +0200, you wrote:
>>
>> >I believe we should think about ALAC sending delegates to
>> >the GNSO (Names) Council. As you may know, individual
>> >users have no seats on the proposed GNSO Council
>> >(they are only mentioned as an example of a possible
>> >provisional constituency).
>>
>> It seems like a good suggestion. Generally, I think there should be
>> liaisons with all SO Councils - of course it will be time to say
>> whether they are effective and necessary or not.
>>
>> >Just a note on words:
>> >>5. At-Large Structures
>> >
>> >I believe this clumsy expression should be dropped and
>> >"user organization" should be used instead. If an "At Large
>> >Structure" is not a user organization, it should not be
>> >in the At Large Advisory Committee in the first place.
>>
>> I guess they wanted to make it clear that, at least for now, groups
>> that are not formally incorporated under the law (eg ourselves!) can
>> still be included. Of course, apart from the name, this will be a
>> matter for deeper discussion: should the "criteria for admission"
>> require formal incorporation? I don't think so, as long as the group
>> can prove its consistency and real activities.
>> -- 
>> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] 
>> bertola.eu.org]<------
>> ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ 
>> <--------------------------
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
>> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
> 
> The conversation continues..... at
> http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 
> 
> 



-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040


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