Re: [ALSC-Forum] RE: Sims/EU development

[Karl Auerbach]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Esther Dyson wrote:
 
> I am not jumping to conclusions yet. I don't know what Joe has or has not 
> said or done, nor do I know how other people (including the board) will 
> react to whatever proposal he may have floated.

As a member of the Board of Directors I can attest to the fact that I know 
nothing about what was proposed; that no summary or notice of this was 
given to me; and that I am aware of no board discussion of, much less any 
board decision upon, these issues.

> From my perspective, I will treat this whole episode as a plot to persuade 
> people that they have to get a little more cohesive and pledge to support 
> an At-Large Membership even if they dislike some details, or they may 
> entirely miss the chance to improve ICANN into what they want it to 
> be.  [this is a joke, folks, but not entirely]

I very much agree with you - there are too many out here who expect the 
at-large to be organized for them by ICANN.

I personally don't want ICANN to create anything more than the basic
at-large registration and voting system (with the ancillary mechanisms for
candidates to sign up to be on the ballot.)  Those are already non-trivial
cost items, but they are ones of sufficiently constrained scope that
ICANN, as an entity, ought to bear the costs as part of the price of its
existance.

It is my preference that ICANN then leave the at-large to either coelese
or fade on its own initiative; to build its own internal structures, its
own communication structures, and everything else using its own efforts.  
That this is possible was demonstrated by the very useful communications
systems that were created by third parties during the last set of
elections.

The key to make this possible is the availability of the voter/membership 
rolls.

ICANN should make elections possible; the at-large itself make them a 
reality.

		--karl--