Re: [ga] Good work by GNSO on sTLDs
Sorry Thomas but one-person-one-vote is not negotiable, as far as many of my
fellow At Large members are concerned. If you have a constituency for
individual internet users, then they should have the ability to vote
individually, and determine the shape of their organisation individually,
and elect their leaders individually.
Of course, you (or the rest of ICANN) can impose a top-down structure which
uses organisations' block votes to limit the perceived "threat" of
individuals (who - oh, shock, horror - might vote in someone like Karl!).
And that's exactly the trouble - many At Large users would get involved in
your stillborn ALAC and even possibly its RALOs if they could see it was
going to hand determination and control out of the hands of orgs like ISOC
(which are long-term buddies of ICANN) and into the hands of the people who
should really matter - the individuals.
By "fudging" this key issue, you will perpetuate the growth of an
independent At Large outside ICANN... hundreds of people who might otherwise
be deeply engaged inside ICANN, and informed, and valuable... people who
would help legitimise a constituency which lost its legitimacy when the
elected At Large directors were expelled.
There are two "fudges" in what you say, which would never be acceptable to
large numbers of Icann At Large :
(a) First fudge -You say: *nothing* in the ICANN bylaws *prevents* a RALO
from going for "one man one vote." Unfortunately in several of these
emerging RALOs there are organisations who will not favour that principle.
It would not hurt ICANN at all to *define* the ALAC/RALO structure as "one
person one vote" - to make it an essential characteristic of a democratic
model... if you vote for your president or other political representative,
do you have a system where you (Thomas) have one vote, but there are also
big organisations who get a big vote too? No of course not, because the
principle of one-person-one-vote is so obvious. It must be the same with the
At Large. It should be about individuals' interests and it should be
determined by individuals as individuals... NOT "nothing prevents"...
"nothing prevents" is not good enough.
(b) Second fudge - You say: A democratic and an organization-based model are
not mutually exclusive. Of course you could allow representatives of
organisations to contribute to forums, or submit papers, or participate in a
non-executive manner... but the structure of the RALOs makes possible models
where the organisations can (and probably will) encroach on the actual
voting for leaders, the decision-making etc and that's not acceptable. You
tell me what kind of voting structure you could invent which allows
organisations to vote, but also protects the principle of
one-person-one-vote, Thomas. It's a fudge.
And of course, that's fine. Maybe that's what you want. Maybe it's what
ICANN wants. But the end result is that the deeply committed At Large
community which has not "bought into" ALAC, will continue to develop
independently, evolving a democratic model, polling mechanism, direct
elections, verification etc. In short, being transparently democratic and
"bottom up" in its procedures.
My sincere hope - and it's up to ICANN and people like you to persuade us -
is that Paul twomey and the ICANN Board will have the simple courage to
revisit the principle of direct elections to the Board (for maybe a
compromise of 2 Board members) or at the very least the principle of direct
elections by individuals to ALAC, with a further delegated vote to determine
2 At Large Directors.
I say "simple courage" because its feasible but involves trust. The benefit
for ICANN would be great. Suddenly you would find large numbers of members
joining the ALAC/RALO structure, participating actively *and contributing*,
and ALAC would come to life (at the moment it's dismally subdued). The other
great benefit for ICANN would be that their embracing of such a democratic
individual-based ideal would legitimise the whole constituency, right the
wrong of the expelled Directors, and be seen in the world as evidence that
ICANN is genuinely involving a vibrant (and colourful!) community of
individual users from all over the world... it would be only the
beginning... it would grow...
I cannot for the life of me see why the ICANN Board has to *fear* the Karls
of this world (or whoever users voted for)...
I urge Paul Twomey to revisit this matter and take bold action.
ICANN is seriously underfunded (in my opinion) and faced with extremely
demanding challenges... and here, with the At Large project, is an area
which could really be made to work, if it was set free to be properly
"owned" by the individuals it is supposed to be for.
But a fudge would be seen as just that... more of the same old tired ICANN
trickery of the past, using layers and buffers to keep the Individual Users
from choosing their own representatives to actively contribute to the ICANN
Board. Sorry, but that *is* the perception (we've polled our members) and
only a clearcut decisive move to a one-person-one-vote principal, detached
from organisational obscuring of the process, would persuade large numbers
of people to believe in the integrity of the project. You know, Thomas, that
there is historically much mistrust, and that works both ways.
We need a new beginning - and an exciting new At Large constituency which
can truly legitimise ICANN's claims.
Paul I hope you can catch this vision and this opportunity!
Yrs combatively but with goodwill,
...
Richard Henderson
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Good work by GNSO on sTLDs
> On 2003-11-01 16:28:58 -0000, Richard Henderson wrote:
(in a mail appreciating the sTLD decision... which is snipped)
>
> > A further big step forward would be for ICANN to recognise the
> > significant credibility *and support* it could gain by
> > 'individualising' ALAC - in other words by actively promoting the
> > principle of one-person-one-vote in all its RALOs, and thereby
> > starting to attract the significant numbers of At Large
> > participants who could make a useful and informed contribution to
> > ICANN's processes, while adding to its legitimacy.
>
> Let me just note that *nothing* in the ICANN bylaws *prevents* a
> RALO from going for "one man one vote."
>
> > If the ALAC and its RALOs were to be developed along a democratic
> > model (rather than an organisation-based model);
>
> A democratic and an organization-based model are not mutually
> exclusive.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/