Re: [ga] request for details about ALAC members

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >On 2003-10-12 08:27:42 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> > ALAC wasn't devised or called for by the At Large user community.
> > It was invented "top down" and is still largely rejected by the
> > real At Large, who believe they have the right to self-organise,
> > choose their own representatives, and operate "bottom up".
> >
And Thomas Roessler replied:
>
> What was it, again, that prevents this "real At Large" from
> self-organising?  What was it that prevents it from speaking up on
> current DNS issues?
>

Thomas, the Real At Large allows individuals to vote for whoever they
choose, to represent them. The Real At Large has survived sabotage and
obstruction, and is building a constituency from the bottom up, with
verification of members in action, mission and bylaws being developed,
membership poll being built... in short, all the things that distinguish it
from the ALAC you were *appointed* to... no-one elected you to represent
anyone, ALAC was imposed top-down, an invention of a Boardroom that wanted
to protect its own power while "appearing" to take individual users into
account. If ALAC truly represented individual internet users, it would let
individuals join as individuals, and allow them to vote,
one-member-one-vote, so that the people who claimed to speak for the At
Large were truly the representatives of the people, not just nominated
place-people meeting ICANN's need to "cover up" its disgraceful expulsion of
the At Large's elected representatives from the Board Room (doesn't that
single action tell you everything you need to know about ICANN's intent and
motives?) Yes, the real At Large is self-organising, and it certainly can be
painstaking, but at least it allows individuals to choose who they actually
want, not have people imposed on them from above.

With regard to speaking up on current DNS issues, the most active members of
the Real At Large also post frequently and intelligently on the GA-list and
elsewhere (IcannWatch, CircleID etc) and tend to be the people asking the
awkward questions that ICANN insiders don't want to answer. I find it a bit
rich for you to criticise people like me for not commenting on current DNS
issues, when I have patiently posted month after month, helped draw world
attention to the fiascos that accompanied the NewTLD launches (my reports
were, at least, covered here in UK by the BBC), and when I have asked,
repeated, begged, and reasoned for responses to my seriously-framed
questions first to Dan Halloran (no response in over 500 days) and then to
Paul Twomey (no response in over 120 days). The real At Large is indeed
participating in discussion in current DNS issues, but the problem is that
ICANN refuses to engage in dialogue - indeed its lack of responsiveness is a
disgrace.

The legacy or real At Large - largely interacting through IcannAtLarge
(currently thousands of posts a month on its lists, compared to maybe 10 or
20 posts a month by a few ICANN nominees at ALAC) - is simply trying to
provide a voice and a democratic process which is independent of ICANN. This
process began with the election of people like Karl Auerbach. This process
continues, on the principle of one-person-one-vote.

ICANN in contrast (and ALAC through its structural subordination to the
ICANN Board) offers no such self-determination to ordinary individuals. It
is ICANN Board and Staff who are running scared from the issues raised by
the Real At Large, who fail to engage in dialogue, who fail to respond to
serious concerns and questions.

Your participation in ALAC helps legitimise their autocracy.

It creates the semblance of respectability to a Board which has acted
disreputably.

If you are serious about individual users self-organising and seeking their
own representation, I suggest you insist that all ALAC representatives are
elected.

At present you have *no* such credibility. You are part of 'The Denise
Michel Show'. No-one elected you. You were selected from inside.

That's why ALAC can't be taken seriously : it's a Boardroom invention, a
sham, a pretence.

...

Yrs in goodwill,

Richard Henderson