Re: [ga] request for details about ALAC members

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes but ALAC has been deliberately set up by ICANN to *limit* the power and
influence of users, and to attempt to legitimise their previous actions
(expelling the elected representatives of the At Large from the Boardroom.

Kristy raises the pertinent issue: just why are these people "representing"
individual users? Why can't individual users simply subscribe and then vote
one-person-one-vote on who represents them?

The whole ALAC 'scam' has been initiated by the ICANN Board (surely *that*
in itself should make you suspicious?) who are employing Denise Michel (with
Esther's assistance?) to implement a top-down strategy for *controlling* the
voice and wishes of the individual user constituency.

How extraordinary, that in the individual user's constituency, individual
users are not allowed to directly join as members, and then vote
individually (the mechanism ICANN booted out!). This extraordinary irony
just shows what a confidence trick this ALAC sham is.

I have no doubt that certain members on ALAC are decent well-intentioned
people (and may have some useful input). But the fact remains that the
structure and purpose of ALAC is the outcome of "What the Board wants"...
not "What Individual Users want".

ALAC can submit any number of papers, but the underlying reality is that
ICANN can ignore these at will, and all ICANN wants is a manipulated subset,
locked in a labyrinthine and powerless mechanism, so they can purport to
involve the very people they don't really want on the Board.

If individual users could stand for election on ALAC today, and if those
members were allowed the influence they merit on the ICANN Board as a
massive constituency, do you seriously think that they'd get more votes than
Karl Auerbach and other At Large supporters who have quite rightly
challenged ICANN's autocracy and partisan governance?

So the truth is that the people on ALAC are not the representatives of
individual users... they are just pliable individuals ICANN has seen fit to
put there.

The proof of the ICANN intent is twofold:

1. Organise ALAC on the basis of individual members, not organisational
membership, and allow individual members one person-one vote control of
their constituency.

2. Recognise that the Individual Users are a massive constituency, worthy of
*far* more presence on the ICANN Board than, say, registrars etc... and that
the At Large (as formerly) merits a large *elected* presence on the ICANN
Board.

ALAC is a sham.

What is it about the influence of individual users and democracy, that ICANN
and big business don't understand?

...

Yrs,

Richard Henderson
(www.atlarge.org and www.icannatlarge.org )



----- Original Message -----
From: DPF <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] request for details about ALAC members


> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:18:28 -0400 (EDT), Jonathan Weinberg
> <weinberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Kristy McKee wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >> Just in case you were wondering, there is enough information available
to
> >> convince even the most hopeful person that ICANN's ALAC truly has no
> >> interest in working for the purpose of enhancing the Internet for
netizens;
> >> but rather the special interest groups they represent.
> >
> > This is silly.  I am far from "the most hopeful person" when it
> >comes to anything ICANN, as folks who have read my writings know.  And
> >there's plenty to criticize in the fact that the ALAC members were
> >appointed top-down by the ICANN board and nomcomm.  But I'm personally
> >familiar with a half-dozen of the ALAC folks, and I can testify that
> >they're people of integrity and good will (not to mention a pretty
> >sensible approach to substantive DNS issues).  That does *not* mean that
> >we should all jump on the ALAC bandwagon (as Michael points out, the
group
> >is powerless anyway) -- but it means that a blanket personal attack on
its
> >members is a bad way to go.
>
> I can only agree entirely with Jon's words.  I have found the attacks
> on ALAC members appalling.
>
> Despite my distaste for how ALAC is structured, I note that they have
> managed to put together several very sensible pro-registant and
> pro-user policy statements on topical issues, which is far more than
> certain other groups have done.
>
> DPF
> --
> Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
> E-mail: david@xxxxxxxxxx
> ICQ:    29964527
> MSN:    dpf666@xxxxxxxxxxx