Re: [ga] Good work by GNSO on sTLDs

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 1 Nov 2003 at 21:26, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2003-11-01 16:28:58 -0000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> > A further big step forward would be for ICANN to recognise the
> > significant credibility *and support* it could gain by
> > 'individualising' ALAC - in other words by actively promoting the
> > principle of one-person-one-vote in all its RALOs, and thereby
> > starting to attract the significant numbers of At Large
> > participants who could make a useful and informed contribution to
> > ICANN's processes, while adding to its legitimacy.
> 
> Let me just note that *nothing* in the ICANN bylaws *prevents* a
> RALO from going for "one man one vote."
> 

Very true.  However there is still the problem with having the ALAC reps not elected 
by individuals and not having board seats numbering at least half.  Until that is 
accomplished, it means very little to the users.  The ALAC will still be summarily 
ignored.  ICANN is paying lip service to the at-large and will use the ALAC to 
promote the sham that it is representative just it has used the public comments 
forums to say there is participation when those comments are ignored.  When 
people are simply tired of the sham, ICANN says they don't care.  At the same time 
there is no outreach, forums are still labeled "experimental" and things remain at the 
status quo.  The "current" forums have not worked for quite a while now, btw.

> > If the ALAC and its RALOs were to be developed along a democratic
> > model (rather than an organisation-based model); 
> 
> A democratic and an organization-based model are not mutually
> exclusive.
> 
True, if the organizations are, in fact, representative of those with interests in the 
whole.  So far, that is not the case at all.  They can't be representative if the 
consitituents have not elected them.

> -- 
> Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/
>