<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/15/16 1:45 AM, Evan Leibovitch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh0-PPWn0-YZZ2taLtwAgZKYBb-+1gwLjv_pEWey63h4rQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">The
definitive answer, is within the ICANN bylaws. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#XI">Article
XI</a>, Section 2.4a, which states unambiguously:</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i>The At-Large
Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary
organizational home within ICANN for individual
Internet users.</i></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I am fairly sure that I was the author of that sentence. ;-)<br>
<br>
Stepping back to the rarely mentioned elephant in the room - under
California law ICANN exists for the purpose of promoting the public
benefit. And everything it does must be measured by that standard.
Yes, that's a standard that is vague. But although vague that
standard does suggest a broad scope rather than a limited one.<br>
<br>
With regard to the notions of representation and "stewardship".
First, let's drop that latter word. A steward's job is to preserve
and manage, much like a trustee. But ICANN has become a political
organization that does far more than merely "preserve" things. So
by using the word "steward" we risk imposing mental strictures on
ourselves or misleading observers to think that the role is less
than it really is.<br>
<br>
As for representation - yes, it is hard. There is no pure conduit
for public opinion short of a full direct vote on all things.
That's not very efficient (although in these electronic days it may
be easier than it has been in the past assuming that we can resolve
the one-actual-person-one-vote problem.)<br>
<br>
A person who is acting as a representative performs several roles.<br>
<br>
One of those roles is as a idea-leader: Rather than being a passive
reflector of those he/she represents the representative ought to be
an active promoter of ideas - and an equally active evaluator of how
well his/her electorate (or the broader public) accepts or rejects
those ideas.<br>
<br>
Another role is as a kind of idea-stomach that digests the opinions
of the electorate/public in order to synthesize a position on an
issue. This is really, really hard. And it is why electorates need
the power to replace representatives who are not doing it well.<br>
<br>
And with regard to the thread about tech people being somewhat
disconnected from the broader "emotional" world: I tend to agree
with that point of view.<br>
<br>
The 20th century saw many cases in which technology was considered
somehow a more pure source of governance. There were films that
advocated that view - the best known was "Things To Come" in 1936.<br>
<br>
I believe that ICANN was born from the idea that the internet should
be governed by clean, pure, philosopher techies rather than dirty,
impure politicians.<br>
<br>
But again and again we have seen the inaccuracy that point of view.
For example, here in the US it was technocrats like Donald Rumsfeld
and Robert McNamara who led us into some terrible military
failures. And ICANN has become as political as any other regulatory
body whose decisions to act, or not to act, have large economic
consequences on industrial actors.<br>
<br>
It isn't that we techies can't be good at governance. We just tend
to have a bit of tunnel vision and a somewhat less broad base of
experience. To leave a thought - consider how the 1956 movie
"Forbidden Planet" turned out for the Krell.<br>
<br>
--karl--<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>