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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hear hear!

Thank you Richard. Right on point. Details can be worked out, but I agree
it's time to try again.

I quit the list due to not feeling it was getting anywhere and that ICANN
was not listening. I'm back and I think others will come back as well.

All we are asking for is a democratic process involving the individuial
users of the Internet that WANT to participate.

Is ICANN listening? Can they claim to have a "bottom up" consensus without
recognizing the At Large? Only if they redefine "bottom"

Chris McElroy, President,
Kidsearch Network
http://www.KidsearchNetwork.org
http://www.MissingChildrenBlog.com
http://www.runawayteens.org



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Vint Cerf" <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Bylaws Change Requested -- The At-Large Requires
Representation


> 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
> > >
>