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

[L Gallegos]

 For those who truly want to see fair representation of the greater internet  community and recognize the attempt to further reduce the voice of the vast  majority of stakeholders in the ICANN process.  The following message was  originally posted to the DNSO GA list, but belongs in the ALSC forum.   When ICANN decides to adopt another sham and call it consensus, there  will at least be comments showing the great concern of the individual  stakeholders who now have no meaningful voice.

We must keep in mind that while domain name holders (myself included) are  concered with that area of ICANN, but also stakeholders in the much larger  picture including IP addressing and protocols.  These are totally overlooked  in the proposal to diminish the scope of the at-large membership.

The at-large membership is a completely separate issue from the DNSO and  its structure.  It must remain so.  I hope the stakeholders will not allow the  blanket that is being thrown over their eyes to remain there.  The DNSO  needs to be restructured, but that is not part of the function of the at-large  question.  The at-large is "membership" of the greater community within  ICANN.  SO's are advisory.  Somehow the ALSC combined the question of  the IDNHC constituency with the At-large membership.  It is and must be a  separate issue.

(Originally posted to the DNSO GA mail list)

Well, here we go.  First reduce the number of board seats for the at-large  and limit membership to domain name holders... This is right off the top,  without having to read the report in depth, the scope of the at-large is  reduced and changed, defeating its meaning.  

Are the only stakeholders in the at-large domain name registrants? Not by a  long shot.  ICANN encompasses much more than domain names and  registrants are by far NOT the only stakeholders.  What about IP addressing  and pr otocols?  What about users who do not have domain names but are  affected by ICANN policies?  There have already been cases of suits over  3LDs.  These are domains that are established many times by ISPs for use  by their cu stomers.  These "customers" would have no voice in the at-large.   By limiting membership to domain name registrants, it cuts out a huge  community of stakeholders - users of the internet in the millions and soon to  be in the billions.  

By reducing the number of board seats, the power brokers succeed mightily  in reducing the purpose of the White Paper and the purpose of establishing  ICANN in the first place.  It is a further perversion, and a grave one.  

By making the at-large an SO, it removes the "membership" provision and  the power of the at-large to influence policy decisions.  SOs function in an  advisory capacity.  The at-large must be a membership body within ICANN,  with all rights of membership, to include ALL stakeholders.  

The ALSC speaks of the cost of having an open membership. Establishing a  $10 or $15/year membership fee would certainly cover those costs.  In  addition, registries and registrars could add $.05 to the amount paid to ICAN  N targeted specifically for the at-large. There is no excuse to limit the at- large due to finances.  It is supposed to be a bottom-up organization,  remember?  That makes the at-large a priority, not an after thought.  

This is not an unexpected result of the ALSC, since there is no  representation of at-large membership on the committee and the at-large  was not able to actively participate on any meaninful level as a result.  

Anything less than an open at-large membership with membership rights in  the non-profit corporation as defined by law is unaccepable. Restricting  membership to domain name holders is a further perversion since there are  many more stakeholders in the internet community.  

I hope there will be a groundswell of participation to ensure that ALL  stakeholders are represented in the at-large and that "membership" will be a  mandatory provision for those stakeholders.  If not, the White Paper will have  been defeated and ICANN will still be ruled by a 2/3 majority of special  interests - not those of the at-large.  IOW, nothing will have changed.  

Leah