Why does ALAC make it so hard for new members to join?

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ICANN is facing challenges to its role at the helm of governance of the DNS.

The great shame is that ICANN could have validated its own position if it had 
had a little more vision and leadership.

It is exactly at this time - when governments and agencies around the world are 
starting to say: "Hang on a minute, why should Internet Governance be 
accountable to the United States Department of Commerce, when the rest of the 
world shares its use and development?" - that ICANN might have defended its 
position and claimed a moral authority, had it only developed the At Large as a 
credible movement representing the ordinary internet users around the world.

If there had been a development of an At Large based on membership on an 
individual basis... if there had been the promotion of democratic 
representation of ordinary users, on a one member one vote basis... if, instead 
of Denise Michel's fantasy At Large, ICANN had embraced the exciting idea of a 
huge worldwide community of individual users... then ICANN would now be able to 
turn on its critics and say "Here is an idealistic and engaged movement of all 
the peoples on the Earth... here is our authority for overseeing the DNS... 
here is our credibility... how much better than governments, agencies or 
politicians!"

Instead of which, we have the extraordinary spectacle of Denise Michel's 
so-called "At Large" for individual users, creating an At Large which is for 
organisations only, NOT individual users - a membership to be further curtailed 
and restricted by requiring as a condition of membership that the ICANN 
meetings have to be attended.

http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00843.html
Vittorio: "I have tried to formalize the additional questions we might want to 
pose to
shortlisted applicants for ALAC membership" (this begs the question - why do 
you need to be "shortlisted" or "selected" to belong to the At Large?)... "Are 
you aware that being an ALAC member involves the following commitments: - 
Physical participation in three ICANN meetings per year (5 days each)" This 
requirement in itself locks out the vast majority of internet users! Why should 
*physical* participation be mandatory for membership? Vittorio then continues 
his theme in a leter thread:

http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00854.html
"I take it for granted that, if I am a member of a certain group, I am expected 
to attend all physical and virtual meetings of the group unless I have specific 
reasons not to do so. Is there anyone in the Committee who thinks that showing 
up on conf calls and reading the mailing list should only be an optional 
commitment for ALAC members?" This setting of such impossible criteria (for 
most people) serves to institutionalise a User organisation that locks out the 
vast majority (hundreds of millions) of ordinary users and bars them from 
membership. Admittedly, they are barred anyway, because ALAC refuses to accept 
individual users in their individual users organisation, which in itself is 
arbitrary and exactly the WRONG way to promote the At Large.

Izumi Aizo (a decent fellow) agrees with Vittorio: "I support what Vittorio 
says here - asking for good amount of commitments
from new applicants". FIFTEEN (15) days physical attendance at ICANN meetings a 
year, to qualify for ALAC membership??? Can this be serious!!! This is more 
like a conspiracy to stop the At Large developing freely (though I prefer to 
think it is just a mistaken plan).

http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00858.html
Roberto Gaetano then writes: "I agree with Vittorio on the fact that 
participation in meetings should be taken for granted. If individuals cannot 
contribute to this, no point in joining: we go to ICANN and say that it is 
difficult to "recruit" volounteers, and that we need to consider the idea of 
having more staff." Ah! I see... so instead of having more members, you turn to 
ICANN and say can you please run the At Large with ICANN employees because we 
can't attract new members?

http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00860.html
Herr Roessler then chips in and says "I couldn't have put this better."

Vittorio confirms these new conditions for ALAC membership here: 
http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00868.html



Let us be clear: ALAC was set up - under the auspices of Denise Michel - as an 
attempt to save face after ICANN's expulsion of the elected At Large 
representatives from ICANN's Board. These were the most transparently elected 
Board members, representing the largest constituency of the Internet (hundreds 
of millions of users), and they were summarily kicked out in a coup d'etat. 
Then ALAC was set up so ICANN could say "We still have an At Large... here it 
is!". Only... ALAC is NOT the At Large. ALAC is unelected. ALAC allows no 
individual members (though it purports to be FOR individual members). ALAC is 
simply a product of "spin", set up to create the semblance of user involvement, 
while seeking to lock users out of its own membership, and keep users out of 
the ICANN Boardroom.

The proposals being posted by Vittorio are, in my opinion, a further wrong 
turning. By making new membership to ALAC even more difficult now than it was 
originally... by making 15 days physical attendance at ICANN meetings around 
the world a mandatory requirement for membership of ALAC... these unelected 
"spokespeople" for the At Large are in effect perpetuating the "locking out" of 
so many people who might otherwise contribute to any remaining 'authority' 
ICANN tries to claim for retaining the role it plays.

The At Large... the concept of a community of Internet Users from all around 
the world... a world which so badly needs community and sharing and 
communication and open participation... this At Large is potentially a mighty 
force for good... the means by which the ordinary people of the world might 
retain some control or influence over the future direction of the DNS and 
Internet.

By requiring ludicrous conditions for membership, ALAC is showing just how far 
out of touch it is. Its forums are almost dead. Ordinary users rarely visit 
them because they are locked out of substantive participation. It can't find 
enough people to carry out all its functions. It considers asking paid ICANN 
employees to step in instead.

The real At Large still waits to emerge.

Isn't it time a formal "opposition" to ALAC was set in motion. Isn't it time 
the whole ALAC facade was totally repudiated?

Yrs,

Richard Henderson