[Chapter-delegates] ISOC-NY discusses at-large membership of ICANN

[Patrick Vande Walle]

Danny Younger wrote:
> Meanwhile, this EURALO does not provide any voting
> rights to individuals, the very people that it
> purportedly represents, and in fact has provisions to
> prevent any individual not affiliated with an
> organization from being elected as a representative.
>   
With regard to individual users, I only heard slogans up to now. "We
need to allow individual members to be part of the ALAC process".
Fine. I agree on the principle. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen a
practical proposal on how to do that in the real world.

The Euralo will hopefully have a start a working group that will draft a
detailed proposal, if there are volunteers that are willing to roll up
their sleeves. We have not had the time to draft this proposal during
the 4 meetings we had over the last six months, but we considered it a
bad service to the community to prevent the RALO to start working
because of this.
> As far as I am concerned, ALAC members (including the
> new ones) don't have the interests of the average
> registrant/user at heart.
I see no proof of this.  How  can you judge  people that have not even
started  the work ?
> Sorry, but I've heard the essence of your remarks too
> often without seeing results.
True. see above remark about
> You are
> well-meaning organizations that should be signed up
> instead within ICANN's Non-Commercial Constituency.
NCUC is part of the gNSO which, as its name implies, is heavely focused
on generic TLDs.
Actually, the biggest consumers  of gTLDs are on your side of the
Atlantic. Our membership over here usually prefers ccTLDs.
There are also addressing issues that might appear on the horizon, like
provider-independent address space in Pv6, which might need interaction
with the ASO.
There is SSAC, IDNs for ccTLDs, etc.   The landscape is much broader
than just gTLDs.

-- 
Patrick Vande Walle
Check my blog at http://patrick.vande-walle.eu