RE: [ALSC-Forum] Benefits and goals of At-Large involvement

[Bruce Young]

>  It is supposed to be, yes. However it is not currently.  Many that have
>applied
>for membership have been rejected for reason or reasons that are either not
>properly or legitimately determined or for due the their personal address
>(Physical) cannot or was not verified in a manner that protects their
>privacy.

Yes.  I read about this.  However, from my humble position I am unsure how
to remedy this without opening the the system to the "ballot box stuffing"
that would result if members cannot be verified.


> . . . the past CEO of ICANN Mike Roberts once publicly stated that having
>individuals represented as par to the ICANN structure was unnecessary and
>referred to such a suggestion as one coming from "Kooks".  This attitude
>seemed to have the full support of the ICANN BoD at that time.

Yes.  The prior board had to musc of an elitist "we know better" attitude.
One can only hope that the new members will inject a more-democratic tone to
the body.

>Indeed true!  However this is the 4th @large study.  As such it seems to me
>to be questionable that such an intent is honestly being considered.  I
hope
>that I am wrong.

As do I.  I think the key is for the @Large community to be expanded, and
it's elected representatives given a larger voice on the board.  One way to
do that is to publicize it better next time.  I can't speak for elsewhere,
but during the last @Large registration,  I heard nothing in the news about
it outside the tech press.  For @Large to be effective, it must represent a
cross-section of society.  Everyone who logs on to the Internet needs to
believe that they have an equal chance for a voice to help steer its
direction, regardless of their station in life.


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
byoung651@home.com
http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html