Re: [ALSC-Forum] Another Membership Study - Berkman Center Representation in Cyberspace Study (and MAC)

[Hans Klein]

At 03:12 PM 5/20/01 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>The existance of the at large is simply not a matter that is open to
>question.
>

Karl makes an obvious and extremely important point.

The ICANN board was designed to give representation to different
stakeholder groups.  One stakeholder group -- users, represented by the At
Large Directors -- obtained (partial) representation only last November.

Before that user representation was implemented, however, the other
stakeholders initiated a "clean sheet" study that claims to reconsider
users' very right to representation.

Now, I can certainly understand why some stakeholders would seek to exclude
other stakeholders from decision-making.  But, as Karl points out, such a
move would be without legitimacy. It violates the initial compact upon
which ICANN was founded.

I find it worrisome that the ALMSC meeting of May did consider the question
of fundamentally revising the At Large structure.  For example, one point
raised was, "Should At-Large Members elect Directors to the ICANN Board?"
See: http://www.atlargestudy.org/MtgSummaryMay5-6NY.shtml

I don't understand how such a question could even be addressed, since it
goes against the foundational agreements of ICANN.

Internet users everywhere would feel more comfortable with the ALMSC if
there was some statement concerning the limits of their possible
recommendations.

It would be helpful if the members of the ALMSC would publicly address this
issue in this forum.

Hans 










>The power of the at-large to directly elect a meaningful set of directors
>in elections not subject to management/ICANN manipulation is simply not a
>matter that is open to question.
>
>The power of the at-large to be the body to which the corporate entity of
>ICANN shall be legally accountable is simply not a matter that is open to
>question.
>
>If one thinks that questioning the "benefits and goals" of the at-large is
>a legitimate task, then it stands to reason that such an inqury must also
>equally question the benefits and goals of the Supporting Organizations
>and of ICANN itself.
>
>> I think it's interesting and quite enlightening to revisit the
>> thoughts and worries of two years ago in the context of current
>> discussions.)
>
>Much agreed.  But I go further and suggest that that prior work is more
>than sufficient.
>
>By-the-way, I note that the quote in
>http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00002.shtml contains a
>perceptual error - that participation in an at-large is somehow a
>compensation for denial of entry into decision making parts of the
>Supporting Organizations.  This fact of the matter is that the SOs and the
>at-large are utterly distinct kinds of entities.  The former are ICANN's
>"primary" vehicles for policy development and the at-large has no policy
>role at all.  Consequently, the existance of an at-large should never,
>ever be considered as some sort of substitute for a full role for
>individuals in the various Supporting Organizations.
>
>		--karl--
>
>