----- Original Message -----
Sent: May 20, 2001 17:12
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Ben Edelman wrote:
>... I appreciate the
> critique in <http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00002.shtml>
> that the ALSC needs an "in-depth consideration of the benefits
> At-Large involvement"...
This is one of the reasons why I consider this current "At-Large Study
Committee" to be not particularly relevant and somewhat of a waste of
The existance of the at large is simply not a matter that is open to
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
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
If one thinks that questioning the "benefits and goals" of the at-large
a legitimate task, then it stands to reason that such an inqury must
equally question the benefits and goals of the Supporting
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
Much agreed. But I go further and suggest that that prior work is
By-the-way, I note that the quote in
perceptual error - that participation in an at-large is
compensation for denial of entry into decision making parts of
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.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body
of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html