Re: [ga] Letter to the ALAC

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard Henderson wrote:
> To entrust the At Large movement to ALAC is to accede to ICANN's agenda... 
> namely, to pay lipservice to individual users but in effect to lock them 
> out. Otherwise, why not just revert to accepting At Large membership on an 
> individual basis (with no mandatory 15 days attendance at ICANN meetings as 
> a prerequisite of membership!).

Happy new year to everybody.

Richard,
there is a misunderstanding. When ALAC was discussing participation to ICANN 
meetings, and I added that I thought it was important, I was not speaking of 
participating individuals, but of the (elected or nominated) ALAC 
representatives.
The misunderstanding probably comes from the fact that I improperly named 
them "members". In the flow of the thread, it was clear (at least to the 
people who posted), but I agree, in retrospective, that cutting the 
sentences it could give a wrong message.
Seen in this context, I think you would agree that, even if individual 
members will have rarely the chance to attend an ICANN meeting in person, it 
is of the paramount importance that the 15 ALAC representatives have the 
time to dedicate to this task, i.e. roughly 15 days per year, as you rightly 
calculated.
Regards,
Roberto