[governance] RALOs without halos

Izumi AIZU aizu at anr.org
Mon Jan 23 22:04:51 EST 2006

Bret, thanks for putting the clear idea and direction. I fully share
the views you put below.

To me,  ALS > RALO > ALAC was "better" alternative than
just abandoning the whole AtLarge/ICANN when ICANN Board
decided to go with "reform" without AtLarge at all. That's why
we kind of "lobbied" them to put AtLarge back into ICANN
structure, ended up with the current structure.

Even though there are shortcomings, and after three years
of effort we know more about the shortcomings than before,
simply giving up does not seem to make sense. We can discuss
how to improve, how to make change, but I think just finger-pointing
at the "wrong" target is less constructive, more harmful.
In that regard, I share the following Bret put.

"When we want to achieve the same objective, but have differing
views on how to best achieve it, we should see ourselves as allies,
albeit working on different fronts."


At 12:54 06/01/23 -0800, Bret Fausett wrote:
>Another way to think of the At Large structures -- ALS > RALO > ALAC --
>is simply as a series of relationships designed to share information.
>The thought was to build on existing structures, and create loose
>relationships among them (a la Linked In or Friendster or Orkut), so
>that information from ICANN could be distributed quickly to people
>interested in receiving it, and then, so that information could be
>collected and forwarded to ICANN. The only real responsibility of the
>RALOs is to be a conduit for information and place people on the ALAC.
>There's absolutely no expectation that they spend money or travel.
>E-mail is sufficient. It was designed to be light-weight and
>inexpensive, and its power was to come not from any bylaw guarantee but
>from the power of its ideas and input. This model, a shell of the
>original At Large concept, is what the ICANN Board decided in Ghana,
>rejecting the proposals of its own blue-ribbon Bildt Committee and the
>independent NAIS.
>Many of those working within the ALAC were involved in the various At
>Large Studies and once were deeply committed to ICANN's original idea of
>empowering Internet end-users and electing half of the Board. I don't
>think the belief that ICANN should have a stronger, more empowered At
>Large has been abandoned by any of us working within the ALAC. We are
>simply working within the limited structure given to us by ICANN. After
>Ghana, the only alternative was to abandon ICANN altogether or attack it
>from the outside.
>I fully understand and appreciate the view that complete rejection of
>the ALAC concept might have been preferable as a symbol to ICANN of the
>At Large community's significant dissatisfaction with the Board's vote
>in Ghana. I also fully understand and appreciate the other view that it
>was better to work within the very limited role given to us by the Board
>than to leave ICANN without any At Large involvement at all. What I do
>*not* understand is why the people who want a more empowered At Large
>are directing their criticism at the members of the At Large Advisory
>Committee, as though we're apologists for ICANN's damnable actions in
>Ghana. When we want to achieve the same objective, but have differing
>views on how to best achieve it, we should see ourselves as allies,
>albeit working on different fronts.
>            Bret

governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org

More information about the Governance mailing list