[ga] RE: Bylaws Change Requested -- The At-Large Requires Representation

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Vint,

In my time as an ICANN participant I have taken note
of the degree of participation within three
organizations:  the DNSO GA, the IDNO, and
icannatlarge.  Each of these groups attained mailing
list numbers that only mildly exceeded 1000
participants.  When I compare this activity to that
found within the ISPs, the BC, the NCUC and the IP, I
am proud to see a much higher degree of involvement
(even the registrars don't get more than two or three
dozen entities participating in a vote).

We both know that a constituent body may be launched
with a great amount of fanfare and that initial
signatories to such an effort may be many, but
certainly it will not be an unmanagable number -- as
recent organizational history has shown -- and over
the course of time those numbers invariably will drop.

I am suggesting that the Board allows for the
formation of a new constituency -- an At-Large
Assembly.  Member management would become the
responsibility of the constituency, not ICANN, so the
ICANN concern over a possible 80,000 new voices
becomes a moot point.

Thanks for sharing your concerns.

Danny

--- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So one interesting question is how to do this while
> not ending up with the
> 80,000 suddenly interested parties that appeared
> when we tried a global
> election? 
> 
> V
>  
> 
> 
> Vinton G Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist
> Google/Regus
> Suite 384
> 13800 Coppermine Road
> Herndon, VA 20171
>  
> +1 703 234-1823
> +1 703-234-5822 (f)
>  
> vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> www.google.com
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:45 AM
> To: vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Bylaws Change Requested -- The At-Large
> Requires Representation
> 
> Vint,
> 
> I share your view that a very small fraction of the
> billion or so reported
> Internet users actually want to provide input.  By
> the same token only a
> small fraction of trademark holders, businesses and
> non-commercial entities
> seek to provide input, yet we do afford these
> constituent groups with an
> opportunity for representation within the ICANN
> process.  The At-Large,
> however, is a constituent part of the whole that has
> been recently relegated
> to the sidelines.  We are asking for the opportunity
> to function just like
> any other constituent body -- with a venue to
> conduct discussion and debate,
> and with the opportunity to have a representative
> structure that conveys
> consensus (or the lack thereof) to the Board on
> issues pertaining to the
> DNS.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Danny
> 
> --- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Danny,
> > 
> > Setting aside the question of success or failure,
> is there a proposal 
> > for any alternative structure for user involvement
> in ICANN? My honest 
> > sense is that a very small fraction of the billion
> or so reported 
> > Internet users actually want to provide input. Do
> you see this 
> > differently?  I forwarded your message, verbatim,
> to the board.
> > 
> > 
> > Vinton G Cerf
> > Chief Internet Evangelist
> > Google/Regus
> > Suite 384
> > 13800 Coppermine Road
> > Herndon, VA 20171
> >  
> > +1 703 234-1823
> > +1 703-234-5822 (f)
> >  
> > vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> > www.google.com
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Danny Younger
> [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:29 AM
> > To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Bylaws Change Requested -- The At-Large
> Requires 
> > Representation
> > 
> > Dear Vint, members of the ICANN Board, and members
> of the At-Large
> > community:
> > 
> > Karl Auerbach writes in his blog:
> > 
> > "ICANN once had a vibrant public sector.  But that
> period ended 
> > several years ago when meaningful public
> participation in ICANN was 
> > eliminated during a process that ICANN, in its
> best NewSpeak, called 
> > "reform.
> > 
> > Today ICANN's palace eunuch, the "interim" ALAC
> sent forth it latest 
> > missive.  It is a pathetic document devoid of
> content yet filled with 
> > phrases of submission and dependency.
> > 
> > ICANN's purpose is to serve the public, the
> community of internet 
> > users.
> > Yet ICANN's ALAC, and much less ICANN itself,
> remembers ICANN's 
> > purpose and ICANN's promises.
> > 
> > ICANN's ALAC was crippled at at its conception. 
> We of the community 
> > of internet users have patiently stood aside
> hoping that perhaps we 
> > would be proved wrong and that the ALAC might
> actually grow into 
> > something of value.
> > During this time ICANN plied the ALAC with money
> and staff support.
> > Attempts were made to froth-up up membership; but
> few signed on.
> > 
> > The ALAC was given a fair chance to succeed.  But
> it has not done so.
> > 
> > It is time to write off ICANN's ALAC as the
> failure it is."
> >
> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000197.html
> > 
> > I agree completely with Karl.  The ALAC has
> functioned as the steward 
> > of a process that replaced At-Large
> "representation" with the promise 
> > of enhanced "participation".  Yet during the
> course of the last three 
> > years, not even one comment on any topic
> whatsoever has ever been 
> > forwarded by any "certified At-Large Structure
> (ALS)" to the ICANN 
> > Board for review.
> > 
> > By now it should be clear to all that the At-Large
> has routed around 
> > the ALAC having long recognized that it fails to
> act in our best 
> > interest.
> > 
> > The At-Large requires a better home within ICANN
> where our views may 
> > be properly debated and then forwarded to the
> Board through elected 
> > representatives.
> > 
> > Please consider this correspondence as a
> "bottom-up"
> > request to change the bylaws.  We have waited long
> enough.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Danny Younger
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 	
> > 		
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
> http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/