RE: Bylaws Change Requested -- The At-Large Requires Representation

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I draw attention to Vint Cerf and Danny Younger's dialogue on the GA list and 
comments posted by Danny here on this forum.

I thank them both for their 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 Vint 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