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

[Jeff Williams]

Bruce and all,

Bruce Young wrote:

> >  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.

  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.

>
>
> > . . . 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.

  Yes one can hope.  But more than hope is needed to insure this occurs.
Hope always springs eternal of course, but is often not enough.  Action
is enough.  Stakeholders need to DEMAND representation in a fair, open
and unfettered manner.

>
>
> >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.

  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.

>  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.

  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.

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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208