Re: [ALSC-Forum] In the press - ICANN Stifling Public's Voice?

[DPF]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:09:33 -0700, "Denise Michel"
<dmichel@atlargestudy.org> wrote:

>1.  The ALSC is attempting to identify At-Large recommendations that have
>the potential for broad support.  

Once again I have to ask where is the broad support for reducing the
number of at large seats?  Look I would have some respect for the cmte
if it said "This is our private view as we are a committee of wise
people and we think this is best even if most others disagree" but
repeatedly purporting to claim wide-spread support for a position
without a single documented example of such support stretches
credibility.

>In order for ICANN At-Large membership to
>become a reality, people besides the 80 individuals who posted on the ALSC's
>forum must support a plan that can be implemented.  While the views of the
>forum participants and of the 30 people who voted in the "straw poll" about
>the number of At-Large Board seats will absolutely be taken into account,
>they do not represent "consensus" or "overwhelming evidence" on At-Large.

I have been careful never to claim there is consensus supporting the
retention of nine seats either because I agree this forum is not the
only one that counts.

But, and it is a supremely important but, in the absence of consensus
either way the status quo should prevail.  And this is where the forum
is important, because the near unanimous opposition on this forum to
the reduction means the ALSC can not truthfully claim consensus for a
reduction.  It can only claim no consensus exists for a change or a
clear consensus to retain nine.

DPF


--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527