[At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large

[Izumi AIZU]

a) and b) happned before the ALAC was established, so
we could do much at all. to counter c) ALS/RALO was proposed
to put some mechanism between the public and ALAC members,
however ALAC memebers do not have voting rights at the Board,
that is different from the a) to c) situation.

izumi


2008/6/9 Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk>:
>>... AND also after the AtLarge Directors were
>>elected from five regions, most of them lost
>>contact with the consituencies, or the very
>>people who voted and elected them, since
>>a) ICANN destroyed all the memebrship data
>>   and communication means,
>>b) most, if not all, directors didn't or
>>   couldn't maintain the communication with
>>   the consituencies constantly, and
>>c) there were no effective mechanism to
>>   guarantee that within ICANN
>
> What have you done as an ALAC member within the ICANN structure to
> change or avoid this undesired situation?
>
> Dominik
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Izumi AIZU
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:34 AM
> To: Dominik Filipp
> Cc: Evan Leibovitch; At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large
>
> I like to point out that web tools will not provide "fair
> representation"
> globally.
>
> There are many areas and regions where still access is a big problem,
> many are using only dial-ups and they are expensive.
> Norbert Klein from Cambodia has always pointed out this issue.
> I am now working on the remote island and mountain areas access problem
> both home in Japan and to some degree for Nepal.
>
> So when "massive" campaign is employed, they are usually voices from
> developed regions with good connectivity, yet other people will be very
> much left out.
>
> I am in favor of using web tools, however, to be a good reference tool
> and out-reach means. They can be a good complementary tool, but not a
> simple alternative to the ALS/RALO/ALAC process per se. I hope people
> all agree with this.
>
> Of course, current ALAC-RALO-ALS framework is not perfect and does not
> solve the access issue, but we have to be very cafeful.
>
> One of the reasons why the current structure was proposed was the
> reflection of the "global" election where some countries such as mine,
> Japan, seemed to dominate the regional membership since the government
> and industry effectively organized the targeted campaign and there was
> no means to stop that that time.
>
> AND also after the AtLarge Directors were elected from five regions,
> most of them lost contact with the consituencies, or the very people who
> voted and elected them, since
> a) ICANN destroyed all the memebrship data and communication means,
> b) most, if not all, directors didn't or couldn't maintain the
> communication with the consituencies constantly, and
> c) there were no effective mechanism to guarantee that within ICANN
>
> So there was some empahsis on "informed participation" than "mechanical
> representation" at that time.
>
> I do not intend to say "keep the status quo" at all, but while AtLarge
> or ALAC is under the review now, I think it might be good to take some
> old lessons from the past to create the new future.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2008/6/9 Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk>:
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan at telly.org]
>> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:10 PM
>> To: Dominik Filipp
>> Cc: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; At-Large Worldwide
>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large
>>
>> Dominik Filipp wrote:
>>> Try to see the positives. I wouldn't see it that dramatically. Access
>
>>> to the Internet, regular or on occasion, is available in many many
>>> countries. And the other means are by no means excluded.
>>>
>> IMO, At-Large is essentially the global community of "users of the
>> Internet". As such, most people who would have an interest in ICANN,
>> one would think, would at very least have Internet access.
>>
>> Improving IT literacy and giving people access to the Internet are
>> extremely important issues, but outside the bounds of ICANN. It just
>> strikes me as simple logic that someone without access to the Internet
>
>> is likely not interested in -- and may be incapable of really
>> understanding -- the controversies of its management.
>>
>> For that reason I would agree with Dominik that online surveys are an
>> effective -- and certainly a cost effective -- manner to receive input
>
>> from large numbers of community members who are at least
> Internet-aware.
>> The main flaw with this tactic is that it is passive: surveys cannot
>> solicit opinion, they can only wait for opinion to come to them. Left
>> alone and unsupported, surveys only attract the brash and
>> self-assured, which biases the results. For this reason IMO online
>> surveys need to be accompanied by grassroots (ALS) support and
>> publicity, to encourage people to understand the questions being
> surveyed and to participate.
>>
>> Such a combination, IMO, is hard to surpass in potential reach and
>> cost effectiveness. It may not be the only solution, but it is to me
>> the best one when resources are limited and the audience can be
>> presumed to at least be aware enough to operate the survey.
>>
>> - Evan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ica
>> nn.org
>>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
 >> Izumi Aizu <<

 Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita
 Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo
 Japan
 * * * * *
 << Writing the Future of the History >>
 www.anr.org