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

[Bruce Young]

>> 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.

>There are a number of ways to accomplish this.  One would for the ICANN
>BoD to adhere to the Privacy Act when collecting or gathering verification
>information.  Thus far however the ICANN BoD has refused to do this.

Why, I wonder?  Maybe an unwillingness to do that much work?

>Stakeholders need to DEMAND representation in a fair, open and unfettered
manner.

That will only happen if public opinion makes it so.  Considering how
abysmally the last @Large registration was publicized, we have a lot of work
to do to make that happen.  I personnaly plan to try and get the local press
involved.

>Also a larger presence on the BoD in terms of numbers of BoD members
>or percentage of BoD members.  At least 1/2 of the current BoD should be
>@large representatives.  This was the original plan until the than BoD
>decided arbitrarily to reduce the @large representatives form 9 to 5.

Yes.  That was "dirty pool."  I can understand a general unwillingness to
give up control, particularly amongst some of the previous board members.
But that is ICANN's mandate: transferring control of the Internet from
government to public control!

>We agree here, as do our members.  However the ICANN BoD has
>actively and deliberately refused to allow many potential members form
joining.
>This was well publicized during the last @large election, but went ignored
>by the ICANN BoD and staff.

That is something this forum will hopefully help to rectify!

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