Thomas Roessler's blog contains an entry, Re: Organization vs Issues which puts forward an argument why ICANN's ALAC ought to be issuing position statements on substantive ICANN policy matters when the ALAC itself has only the thinnest and weakest of tendrils into the community of people affected by the internet and ICANN's policies.
Thomas is a valiant warrior who does carry the flag of public interest. But my sense is that his note hints more of retreat than of progress.
I'm not sure can find the core of his argument. However, I did note the claim that any user representation body would be subject to criticism because it doesn't represent individual users.
Now, I find that to be a very odd claim, particularly when that claim is coupled with the statement that "representativity" is "non-achievable".
I'd like to know why it is that elections by internet users for representatives on ICANN's Board of Directors is "non-achievable". To my way of thinking, we have an existance proof, the ICANN elections of year 2000, that clearly indicate that such means are quite achievable.
ICANN has done a great job destroying the means for the public interest to have a voice in ICANN's decisions. It is unfortunate that the Ptomkin Village that ICANN has erected, the ALAC system, as a facade to mask its explusion of the public interest fools some observers into the belief that ICANN has a means for public participation.
One can only hope that the ALAC members themselves don't buy into ICANN's repudiation of real participation. However, a missive from the ALAC's central committee that blithely dismisses direct elections by the public for ICANN Board seats does not bode well for the sucess of the already enfeebled ALAC.Posted by karl at September 2, 2003 5:51 PM