Proposed membership in At-Large Constituency (ALC) of ICANN
Luc Flaubert, of ISOC-Quebec recently posted an invitation for ISOC chapters to become members of the At-large constituency (ALC) of ICANN. We are already members of the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC).
Is there any conflict in being members of both constituencies?
Would it make us more or less effective in terms of influence? We haven't done much with ICANN so far as an organization, but we should try to in the future -- it's an essential part of the discussion of Internet governance issues.
The ALC has not been very influential in the past in affecting ICANN policies.
At the ISOC-NY membership meeting on Thursday, March 15, Veni Markovski spoke in favor of ALC membership. He argued that ICAAN needed constructive input from the Internet community, and that lack of input rather than an intentionally antidemocratic stance on the part of ICAAN leadership, was the real problem.
It was agreed that we needed to research what impact ISOC-NY policy recommendations would have as a result of our being members of the ALC, the NCUC (which we currently are), or members of both. What are the actual procedures for implementing a policy recommendation?
Danny Younger's argument against membership of the ALC at the Feb 15, 2007 AGM
It can be downloaded here.
Response from Luc Flaubert - Feb 18, 2007
Thanks for this, Joly and Danny.
ISOC Québec will consider joining NCUC so we can participate in both the At-Large and NCUC.
Regarding participation in At-Large, from our perspective, if we are going to try to convince the ICANN board to reinstate board representation of the user community, we have better chances of accomplishing this by already being part of At-Large.
Having said this, I want to say that I understand and respect Danny's position.