Re: [ga] At-Large membership: definition

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vittorio,

When I look at the At Large in the overall, I see a
populace without elected representatives in ICANN.  I
see a group that has no Supporting Organization, none
of their own directors on the ICANN Board, and a group
called the ALAC which has done absolutely nothing to
advance the cause of representation for individuals
within ICANN and which remains unwilling to even
discuss the issue of representation because it might
result in the loss of their travel perks.

What do you see?



--- Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Danny Younger ha scritto:
> > Vittorio,
> > 
> > I refer you to the Membership Advisory Committee
> > Commentary on the Principles of the At-large
> > Membership:
> > 
> > 1. At-large membership should primarily represent
> > those individuals and organizations that are not
> > represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs).
>  
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/macberlin.html
> > 
> > In view of this definition (arrived at by
> consensus
> > through the ICANN process), can you explain to me
> on
> > what basis the ALAC certified the Intellectual
> > Property & Technology (IPT) Section of the Hawaii
> > State Bar Association as an at-large structure?
> > 
> > Intellectual property lawyers are already
> represented
> > within the GNSO.  They have a constituency called
> the
> > Intellectual Property Constituency.  Why didn't
> you
> > refer these applicants to their proper home within
> > ICANN instead of bastardizing the concept of
> At-Large
> > membership even further?
> 
> I can only tell you what were my own reasons for
> voting in favour.
>  From the diligence we made, it seems that the
> applicant is looking 
> towards a broader perspective than the simple
> promotion of IP interests 
> - they are apparently not interested in acting just
> as IP lawyers, but 
> rather as individual users of the net. My idea is
> that - in the same 
> spirit as in the original At Large elections, by the
> way - no one should 
> be prevented from joining the At Large; that's
> exactly the sense of the 
> term "primarily" in the document you quote, which,
> by the way, is not 
> the binding definition of our constituency and
> mission, which is rather 
> to be found in the ICANN Bylaws, and where the focus
> - appropriately, I 
> think - is shifted from "everyone else" to
> "individual users of any kind".
> You should look at the At Large in the overall, not
> in its individual 
> constituents; the only way to prevent capture by any
> group is for all 
> groups to participate. I am looking forward to see
> other groups and 
> organizations participating in the future - the
> solution is to be more 
> inclusive, rather than less inclusive.
> Regards,
> -- 
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a]
> bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com