RE: [ALSC-Forum] Re: User Interest in ICANN is Broad and Deep

[Joanna Lane]

> The point I was making was that [almost everyone] pays, locally and
> directly, for American election services.  Numerous commenters on
> this list have suggested that [essentially no individual ALSO
> members] pay for AL election services.


False. Please point me to the part of the ICANN's budget that the general
public do not already fund [indirectly ISPs/ Registrars etc.], including the
2000 Elections, the $500K ALSC budget and some not insignificant
"consultancy" fees.

Whether or not the Board recognizes the importance of the At large to it's
own survival, the main issue remains - does it have enough leverage to
ensure a fully funded ALSO, and who are the groups from whom it can and
should demand contributions exactly?

If we look at the At Large participant as the general public user, and
assess their perception of ICANN, evaluate what these people think they have
to lose from not joining an ALSO and alternatively, what is the *perceived
gain* from joining, the answer could well be *nothing* [ albeit we on the
inside know different]. If so, then short of a multi-million dollar
advertising campaign, which again must be funded from *somewhere*, the
*only* source of finance available is raising existing contributions, in
effect, imposing an indirect charge onto users. (add 1 cent to domain name
registrations/ increase ISP contributions and the like). The alternative is
collapse of the At Large altogether (if Mike Roberts is to be believed and I
would not disagree with him in that respect), which scenario it has already
been decided is not an option (if the ALSC Report is to be believed ICANN
success is dependant upon an At Large).

It is no coincidence that the only pledges received to date, [two], have
both come from those who have a history of receiving professional
remuneration from ICANN for work done. In short, those who have a vested
interest (profiteering) in ICANN will be the only ones interested to ensure
the survival of the At Large representation , even if it means funding it
themselves. That is the future of the At Large as it stands, or it has no
future, and as I have argued previously, without an At Large, ICANN itself
is in danger of collapse from lack of credibility.

Criticizing and insulting the activists in this forum indefinitely is not
the answer, neither is asking them for $1000 pledges. The choice is to
commit to an outreach campaign to convince significant numbers of "us" to
pay a membership fee to join, or foot the bill to kick-start the thing, and
hope the momentum grows to self-sustain at a level that is both effective
and manageable, hence the decision is a fairly simply one to make: Which is
the cheaper option? I would say the latter.

Regards,
Joanna