Re: [ga] Letter to the ALAC

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto, Happy new year to you too,

You say there is a misunderstanding. You say:
"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."

But I was referring to Vittorio's specific post at:
http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00843.html
which defines MEMBERSHIP as requiring these commitments, and I quote:

Vittorio: "2) Are you aware that being an ALAC member involves the following
commitments: - Physical participation in three ICANN meetings per year (5
days each)".

My point is that membership of ALAC - to have credibility - should not
exclude people just because they may choose to participate online rather
than physically at ICANN's meetings all round the world. My deeper objection
to the ALAC structure is that it not only creates these barriers to
membership, but excludes individuals belonging and participating as
individuals anyway. The whole set up keeps individual internet users at arms
length and prohibits them from membership. Please clarify if you wish, but
the link above to Vittorio's post, and the specific words I've quoted from
it, seem to afford little room for misunderstanding: "Being an ALAC member
involves... physical participation in three ICANN meetings per year."

I object to that principle.

Roberto, you say at:
http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00858.html
"The ALAC exists to get some work done. Members are recruited to help in
getting the work done. If individuals cannot contribute to this, no point in
joining." While active participation is a wonderful thing, circumstances and
opportunities for users will vary enormously, and Vittorio's 15-day
commitment for membership would exclude so many who have other insights to
offer and other viewpoints to contribute.

There should be ONE condition for membership of the At Large in any of its
variant forms: you are an individual internet user. You should welcome ALL
who wish to be members of ALAC, regardless of status, wealth, opportunity to
travel the world, and particularly regardless of the fact that they are -
shock! horror! - individual internet users (which is, after all, what the At
Large aims to support). Far better to have genuine individuals than
organisations used as fronts by ICANN to "select" an exclusive minority, as
they (ICANN) see fit.

Open the door to these ordinary users and the movement can grow and benefit
from a multiplicity of dynamic and often divergent views.

Of course, the whole ICANN initiative in creating ALAC was about control:
and that is exactly what I fear we see here, further damaging the
credibility of ALAC as in any way representative of the majority of internet
users.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to the ALAC


> 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
>
>