My comments are below: Sent from my iPad On May 29, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
To be clear, the ISOC opinion that this chapter no longer exists is just ONE of several data points that we are using.
I find it curious that we are adamant that people should lose their domain names if their Whois contact information is not useable, but want to apply a lesser standard here.
There is a material difference. In this instance, we are dealing with a community of users and their (voices). Due diligence demands that caution is exercised in silencing a voice and in this instance potentially a community. Perceptions are important so it is important that appropriate inquiries are carried out. I have asked a Pakistani lawyer who has no affilliations with ISOC Pakistan to do the due diligence searches on my behalf. I have also tried to contact members of the ISOC Pakistan community to hear what they have to say on the matter. All this of course is before we take to the vote.
Posting information about the ALS and facilitating communications between ICANN and their members are among the minimum criteria for every ALS. If they are not doing tat, they do not meet the criteria.
By this very test, I would say that there are many decertifications on the horizon. One of the challenges that we have to deal with is constant communication with the ALSes and updating our records etc.
Alan
At 28/05/2013 08:17 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Hi Holly,
My comments are below:
Sent from my iPad
On May 29, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Hi Sala
We are not talking about strained relatioships or a political impasse. We are talking about an organisation that did exist and was recognised by ISOC - but it no longer exists - and its non-existence is recognised by ISOC - and the fact of its non-existence should be recognised by us. While there may be people who are disaffected by the dissolution of that chapter, it does not mean the chapter exists. As Olivier said, there is no website, no response to emails, and advice to us over a year ago from ISOC that the chapter has been dissolved. They had a website and it worked. The website is now gone. There were email addresses that responded - now they do not.
On the issue of non- response to emails. There are many ALSes who do not respond to emails and one of the reason is either a defective email address or changes in addresses or personnel.
It would be arrogant of us not be take the advice of ISOC, and the lived experience of Olivier (NO Contact) to pretend that an organisation that does not exist should stay on our list of ALSs. If nothing else, it makes us look very foolish.
It will make us look even more foolish if we decertified when contact addresses have shifted or changed.
Please, could we respect those with the authority (ISOC and people who were members of the chapter that no longer exists) on this issue.
We set a dangerous precedent if we rely on word of mouth instead of conducting our own independent due diligence much the like the accreditation process. If the same level of diligence is applied during accreditation, why should'nt there be equal weight in the decertification process.
The last time I checked, the At Large is not an ISOC body or are we. In hearing ISOC whom we have no contractual relationship with in this instance, our relationship is with ISOC Pakistan an ALS that used to be part of ISOC, we run the risk of being seen as "idiots". The Latin Maxim relevant here is "Audi alteram partem" which is the right to be heard, a basic tenet in administration matters, much like the one under current discussion.
Essentially, my recommendations are simple, get the ICANN regional office to investigate independently (they do it for the accreditation process so really don't see why it should be difficult) and in this case I assume that it would be Baher. given that there is no report from him, I am taking the conservative approach on the issue.
If the report finds that the Organisation really is non existent and confirms what people whom we don't have a contractual relationship with, then so be it, let the decertification process proceed.
Holly
On 29/05/2013, at 9:31 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
On the issue of decertification, I find it problematic that whilst ICANN staff through global partnerships does the due diligence for accreditation purposes, there is no similar or equal process done by them.
I note that ISOC has a problem with ISOC Pakistan and my view is that this is a political impasse between ISOC and ISOC Pakistan, that they should resolve between themselves. By extension, this also means that the use of the ISOC logo and related memorabilia etc. When ISOC Pakistan was accredited in the first instance, it was accepted as an ALS within Pakistan and At Large. It follows that the agreement or relationship is not with ISOC but with the ALS on the ground.
Whilst there seems to be some strained relations between ISOC Pakistan and ISOC, I have also noted that discussions have all been with ISOC officers and those with affiliations to ISOC. A principle of fairness and equity would demand that a due diligence investigation should be carried out by an independent officer without any ISOC leanings to collect information on the ground about the justified delisting of an entity. I have held prior roles in regulating the capital or securities markets and know that even with delisting entities from the stock exchange etc, there are stringent tests. (not saying that the tests should be the same but that we can look at principles of what's fair etc).
If the ALAC deems that the ALS does not have a website me or that it has not been responding to mails. From current efforts within the Capacity Building Working Group, I can tell you that not all ALSes have websites and neither do all the contacts given to ICANN during the Accreditation process. Therein lies the danger of decertification because just because the original address given to At Large does not work. (There could be many explanations)
On another note, there is a very real danger in delisting upon the advice of ISOC on one of their chapters because they do not conform to the ISOC mission. Whilst ISOC does have the right to delist from their roll, I am very uncomfortable with them interfering with an ALS on the ground.
On the issue of the use of the name ISOC Pakistan, I do not think that it is a matter that should concern us as the ALAC as this is a private impasse between ISOC and ISOC Pakistan. On a similar note, recently when cleaning up our spreadsheet of ALSes, we were informed when we checked with some of our members of the change of names of some of the ALSes as this is a possibility and likelihood as far as evolution of Organisations go. People change and names change, sometimes.
In this instance, in the event, I am mindful that there are always two sides to every story and it is always wise to have all the facts before making a decision.
Thoughts from the far seas.
Sala
Sent from my iPad
On May 29, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 28 May 2013 15:10, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Thanks Yaovi. I agree that adding the line about ISOC makes the disappearance clearer, but I think it also adds something that could get us into trouble.
I disagree, and support Yaovi's amendment.
Indicating that we have checked with "the" Internet Society and they have indicated that the Pakistan Chapter no longer exists, simply indicates an extra level of due diligence was undertaken to ensure that all reasonable steps have been made to establish viability and/or contact.
I would also note that the use of the term "Pakistan _*Chapter*_" strongly indicates that this was a subordinate body of a larger one (not the case in China) and that we have made a good-faith attempt to verify our information with the only body known by the name "internet society" to have multiple international chapters.
The motions simply detail our good-faith attempt to make all reasonable efforts to establish contact before taking this extreme measure. These details do not obligate us to take the same exact measures for any future circumstance of this nature; the "without prejudice" sentence in both motions makes that intent quite explicit IMO.
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)