Dear Andrei,
thank you for this. Whilst I usually completely agree with our
friends in SSAC, I am really surprised to read one specific comment
that is both technically wrong in the context of the ICANN Bylaws,
and also disenfranchises the At-Large community and the At-Large
Advisory Committee.
Quoting from SSAC106, Section 2, Comments on RSSAC037:
The SSAC notes that Section 4 of RSSAC037,
listing the RSS stakeholders, does not make explicit
mention of the Internet's user base. The reference to the ICANN
Community includes ICANN's At Large Community, but there is a
distinction between the collection of individual Internet
users who participate in ICANN's policy development process and
the broader collection of Internet users. The stability and security
of the Internet's name system is critical for all Internet
users. RSSAC037 states: "The stakeholders of the RSS
are the people, groups, and organizations that have an
interest or concern in the proper operation of the RSS." It
would be logical to consider how to include this
broader category of Internet users within the evolution of the RSS's
governance structures. This topic could be addressed in the
ongoing evolution of the RSS
governance processes.
Basically put: the ALAC, according the SSAC comment in
SSAC106, is a "collection of individual Internet users who
participate in ICANN's policy development process" and NOT "the
broader collection of Internet users".
This is wrong, according to ICANN Bylaws:
(i) The At-Large Advisory Committee ("At-Large Advisory Committee"
or "ALAC")
is the primary organizational home within ICANN for
individual Internet users. The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide
advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate
to the interests of individual Internet users. This includes
policies created through ICANN's Supporting Organizations,
as well as the many other issues for which community input and
advice is appropriate. The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms, also
coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to
individual Internet users.
This disenfranchises the ALAC as it basically tags the ALAC as a
"collection of individual Internet users who participate in ICANN's
policy development process". Whilst I can imagine that some of the
members of the SAC might think the ALAC is a "collection", I am
very surprised that this type of language has gone through the
usually thorough SSAC processes. Otherwise, why have we built this
network of RALOs, ALSes, and individual members from around the
world for, if it was not to reach out to *all* Internet users out
there?
I am really very surprised that this was let through.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 09/08/2019 13:20, Andrei Kolesnikov
wrote:
Dear colleagues,
SSAC has published the document "SSAC 106: Comments on
Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System." with
comments and 4 recommendations.
Best regards, --andrei
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.