Re: [ga] I agree with Vittorio (and yes, this is the first time)

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well maybe the time has come to seriously question the effectiveness and
impact of the whole ALAC project, which seems to orbit around 5 or 6 people,
but which fails to attract dynamic user participation.

Maybe it is time the Board asked: Why don't more people feel motivated to
participate?

Perhaps it would be better if the Board considered alternative or additional
ways of promoting informed participation by Individual Internet Users.

And I do mean "Individual" users. That is at the heart of where ALAC fails
and what ICANN lacks.

Representation would be much more effective if it was achieved through the
active participation of individuals, rather than the vague co-opting of
organisations with minimal input.

Setting representation aside, at the very least, it would be good to see an
active and committed community of Individual Users, actually participating
in policy discussion and development. There should be a place and platform
for such individuals, somewhere in the ICANN structure.

ALAC has proved *not* to be that place.

Look at its moribund 'graveyard' forums and tell me I'm wrong. Participation
simply hasn't happened (except for that handful of people who were largely
hand-picked in the first place by Denise Michel).

I invite the Board to review the effectiveness of ALAC and consider
alternative or additional initiatives.

I invite Individual Users with a serious interest in determining the future
shape and structure of the DNS to consider ways in which representation of
the millions of users might begin to be achieved, at least at a
participatory level.

To me, intelligent participation by individual users would be the best way
of beginning to create a voice and representation of user interests. It
would also add credibility to ICANN at a time when its authority is under
scrutiny. But to attract more participation, individuals have got to feel
that their participation has a platform, has a home, and is actually taken
seriously.

Or... ICANN can have just what it has right now... virtually ZERO
participation from the world's Individual Internet Users.

Maybe that's what it wants?

But it won't help their case in the face of calls for wider accountability.

At the very least, ICANN should engage users seriously, so that they can
claim a kind of mandate on the basis of users all over the world
participating on their forums and in their processes and within their GNSO.
Many people would want to encourage and embrace an ICANN that had the
mandate of real user participation, as opposed to some UN-seized
governmental and politicised alternative.

It would be in the interests of both ICANN and the US government to rapidly
engage and involve Individual Users in the ICANN processes.

ALAC has no credibility. ALAC is not the solution.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson
www.atlarge.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <nomcom-comments@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 4:10 PM
Subject: [ga] I agree with Vittorio (and yes, this is the first time)


> Vittorio writes regarding the new Nominating Committee
> appointments:  "My first general observation is that
> there is no person from any At Large Structure being
> appointed to the ALAC, and no person from the At Large
> constituency in general being appointed to any other
> position. This might as well be due to the lack of
> such kind of nominations, and yet I am quite concerned
> by this result, especially since the NomCom idea was
> "sold" as the way to ensure representation of the At
> Large users community."
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com