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

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Vint, Danny,

Thank you for this dialogue.

The reason ALAC appears to many to be moribund and sidelined by so many
individual internet users is that individuals are not able to join as
members in their own right, and there is no democratic process for giving
the direction and decision-making of the At Large to individuals duly
elected as representatives by several thousands or tens of thousands of net
users who participated in previous elections - before the ICANN Board
expelled their representatives.

At a time when the US is trumpeting the need for "democracy" in other nation
states, it is disappointing that the ICANN Board (accountable to the US) is
unwilling to embrace "democracy" in its own processes, with regard to the
representation of the interests of individual internet users.

As both Danny and you concede, only a minority of the billions of Internet
users will actually choose to participate in ICANN processes, but those who
do choose to will probably do so at the point where they begin to have an
interest and some insight into the process of Net Governance.

It would be much better to at least bring on board, say, 10000 individuals
with an interest in and concern for the policies that impact on the DNS and
the development and structure of the Internet, than to maintain the status
quo - which actually blocks individual internet users from being members of
ALAC in their own right as individuals. This last fact is deeply ironic when
ALAC is apparently set up for just those people - individual internet users.

By keeping individuals at arms length, ICANN and ALAC have effectively
de-motivated those hundreds and thousands of users who had previously wanted
to participate. You only have to look at the record of ALAC's moribund forum
to feel dismay that this is the best we can do in eliciting participation
from a constituency numbering billions.

So I respectfully continue to urge you to restore "democracy" to the At
Large process within ICANN, reforming ALAC's present structure to allow
individual membership by enthusiasts and interested parties, and basing
democracy on that quaint old American and British ideal of "one person one
vote" - an ideal which both countries assert as principles for pursuing
their foreign policy.

If ICANN was to restore the principle of one-person-one-vote to its At
Large, based on a constituency of individual members, then I guarantee you
that your At Large structure would instantly be brought to life and
thousands of people would be drawn into your process.

There is a wider implication and benefit for ICANN too.

At a time when much of the rest of the world is challenging the mandate of
ICANN and the US to retain oversight of many of these functions, because
many people and countries feel that the Internet is a worldwide resource and
should not be overseen by one country and its quango, it would be hugely
beneficial to ICANN to be able to say to the UN and at the UN (or its
relevant committees and groups):

"Look! The internet is for the benefit of individual users all round our
globe. Here at ICANN we have a structure which invites participation from
individuals from all the countries of the world, and this structure is
democratic and representative, and extends right into the ICANN Boardroom.
If Net Governance was transferred to the Governments of the Nations as
represented through the UN, you would actually be in danger of stifling that
individual participation and competition that has characterised so much of
the success of the Net. Look at our worldwide users! Look how vibrant our At
Large is! Isn't it better that the actual individual internet users are kept
at the heart of the Net's Governance?"

A revived At Large movement embraced by ICANN would give it a worldwide
mandate it so glaringly lacks at present. It would give ICANN a moral
authority: the democratic voice of individual Internet Users.

Vint, I understand from dialogues you have been kind to offer me in the
past, that you oppose this "democratic" model (largely because I think you
feel it is unworkable and could never be truly democratic).

I agree that it can never be fully democratic in the sense that you will
never engage most of the world's people in it. But something is better than
nothing, and a vibrant and engaged At Large would be far far better than its
present moribund and exclusive ALAC with its graveyard forums. Interest in
the At Large is so small, because the At Large excludes from membership the
very group it purports to represent: individuals!

People largely don't bother to participate because they don't feel they have
mechanisms for being truly and fully involved; they don't feel their views
will get represented, even if they express them; they feel the ALAC is
simply a mechanism of ICANN for keeping the User Constituency at arm's
length.

I call on you, Vint, and the ICANN Board, to take an idealistic leap of
faith and embrace once again the process of individual membership and
democratic representation of Individual Internet Users on the basis of
one-person-one-vote.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Henderson
www.atlarge.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:44 PM
Subject: [ga] 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
> >