Why I oppose ALAC's structure and lack of representation

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My opposition to the ALAC concept, its structure, methodology, and intent is as 
follows:

1. It is entirely a top-down ICANN Board initiative, which was launched to 
"cover up" the disgraceful expulsion from the Boardroom of the elected 
representatives of the open At Large, in an effort to give ICANN a facade of 
credibility while in reality removing the most open, democratic and free voices 
of individual users from any substantial power in its organisation.

2. Nobody asked for this ALAC initiative - it was imposed.

3. The political purpose of ALAC is to create a semblance of "representation" 
(without any individual membership or elections) while keeping the potentially 
powerful Internet User constituency at arm's length from any real power in the 
ICANN organisation.

4. In replacing the elected At Large directors with ALAC, ICANN was flying in 
the face of its own ALSC task force, which recommended increased representation 
by At Large directors in the ICANN Boardroom, not their total removal.

5. It was clear (from lawsuits which ICANN failed to win) that the ICANN old 
guard saw At Large directors like Karl Auerbach as a total threat to their 
hegemony and 'insider' control. The ICANN old guard were faced with duly 
elected Directors who had a mandate and who spoke with freedom and 
independence, and it was typical that these threatening free voices were booted 
out. ALAC was part of this 'coup' process.

6. The 'control' aspect of the ICANN insiders is linked to the lack of any true 
mandate for ICANN itself - a Californian quango accountable only to the 
department of Commerce of a single country, which dictates its terms of 
reference without any further accountability to all the other countries of the 
world. In this carefully controlled US structure, lip-service is paid to other 
countries through GAC and lip-service is paid to the millions of worldwide 
users through ALAC, but power and control is retained by the US which enjoys a 
symbiotic relationship with ICANN which benefits both establishments. To this 
extent, ALAC as a structure supports a status quo which is lacking in any 
accountability to either users or governments anywhere else in the world.

7. It is transparently obvious that a structure for individual users should 
allow membership to individual users - something ALAC prohibits.

8. This lack of individual participation, membership and involvement explains 
to a great extent the 'deadness' of ALAC, the lack of activity in its 
mailing-lists, and the unwillingness of thousands of At Large individuals to 
get involved.

9. Many of the ALAC member-organisations lack democratic elections or 
representation themselves and simply send nominees who lack mandate and are 
largely just a small circle of people who have chosen to take the ride on the 
ICANN bandwagon, with free travel provided to locations around the world.

10. The ALAC structure and methodology in real terms just means a group of 6 or 
7 of these unelected people running the At Large interests, drafting the 
policies, while all the rest of the vast user constituency just aren't involved 
at all - locked out from membership, and locked out of the structure.

11. There was a large electoral role of many thousands of At Large 
participants, used effectively at the earlier elections of the At Large 
directors, which ICANN has conveniently lost, mislaid or locked away. This 
electoral role worked perfectly well in bringing about representation for 
Individual Internet Users, and in generating a lively and participating At 
Large community. It is a transparently better way of involving the individual 
internet users because they feel more involved and feel they have more 
ownership of the process. Most interested Individual Users favour a 
self-determining At Large structure, with electoral representation, to the 
craven nominees and member lock-out which has resulted in a near-dead ALAC 
which is little more than a smal group of people drafting a few policies 
without accountability to anyone but themselves. They are not voted in. They 
are not voted out. They just enable ICANN to say "We have an At Large 
structure" as part of the "sham" by means of which it retains control of the 
DNS in co-operation with the department of Commerce.

Sotiris - this ALAC pretence is a typical example of how people with power use 
devices and processes to hold onto power at the top. It is not a bottom-up 
structure. It does not help ordinary and individual internet users to determine 
FOR THEMSELVES the way they want the Internet and DNS to be overseen. It "does 
it for them", while locking them out, in a manner which is paternalistic and 
patriarchal in its methodology and structure. It does not involve the very 
people - and specifically those people as individuals - which it purports to 
represent.

Because, apart from anything else, there IS no representation.

That was expelled by the ICANN Board.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson