Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities
I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be the only entity to represent individual internet users. The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments welcome. ---------------------- 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up. 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community. The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold. The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context. On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work. Relationship with other ICANN entities 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues
Personally, I think option two is better overall for users. It also takes into account what's going on within the NCUC. As for the legitimacy issue, I think that can be resolved with some screening and some written criteria. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle [patrick@vande-walle.eu] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:59 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be the only entity to represent individual internet users. The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments welcome. ---------------------- 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up. 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community. The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold. The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context. On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work. Relationship with other ICANN entities 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
We have said at the ALAC statement, few months ago, that the ALAC and end users must have more participation in GNSO, and this GNSO restructure open the door to that. IMHO is better so the first option. but, of course is a desition to will take us. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > From: Brenbe@consumer.org> To: patrick@vande-walle.eu; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:21:43 -0500> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities> > Personally, I think option two is better overall for users. It also takes into account what's going on within the NCUC.> > As for the legitimacy issue, I think that can be resolved with some screening and some written criteria.> ________________________________________> From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle [patrick@vande-walle.eu]> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:59 AM> To: At-Large Worldwide> Subject: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities> > I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with> other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be> the only entity to represent individual internet users.> > The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments> welcome.> > ----------------------> > 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different> groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these> groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the> only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other> issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC> members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up.> > 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community.> The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold.> The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly> identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There> is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these> groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to> the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if> the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context.> > > On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical> issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the> policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account> that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work.> > > Relationship with other ICANN entities> > 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and> concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes> > 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of> the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN> entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice> > 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be> strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and> within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues> > _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac> > ***> Scanned> > **> This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.> > _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac _________________________________________________________________ Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar
Carlos...I would like to agree with you. My problem at the moment is that I don't see the RALO-ALS structure as viable right now. I am speaking with a North American bias, clearly, but there are only a scant handful of people in the NA-RALO. To say that the NA-RALO is an adequate representation of the North American user community would be absurd, no disrespect of my NA colleagues at all intended, of course. It may work better in LAC and AP. ________________________________________ From: carlos aguirre [carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:40 AM To: Brendler, Beau; patrick@vande-walle.eu; At-Large Worldwide Subject: RE: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities We have said at the ALAC statement, few months ago, that the ALAC and end users must have more participation in GNSO, and this GNSO restructure open the door to that. IMHO is better so the first option. but, of course is a desition to will take us. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar<http://www.sitioderecho.com.ar/> www.densi.com.ar<http://www.densi.com.ar/>
From: Brenbe@consumer.org To: patrick@vande-walle.eu; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:21:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities
Personally, I think option two is better overall for users. It also takes into account what's going on within the NCUC.
As for the legitimacy issue, I think that can be resolved with some screening and some written criteria. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle [patrick@vande-walle.eu] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:59 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities
I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be the only entity to represent individual internet users.
The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments welcome.
----------------------
1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up.
2. There should be other groups representing users within the community. The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold. The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context.
On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work.
Relationship with other ICANN entities
10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes
11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice
12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
________________________________ Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. Internet Explorer 7<http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar> *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
Beau: YES, in fact in your region the participation is very different than other regions, and the OP of the NARALO also, because allow the individual participation when the others not. In my region for example, and by law (OP) isn`t possible the individual participation, When a person wants to participate must do so through an ALS. So in LACRALO, the ALSs are the representatives of the individual and final users. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > From: Brenbe@consumer.org> To: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com; patrick@vande-walle.eu; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:30:21 -0500> Subject: RE: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities> > Carlos...I would like to agree with you. My problem at the moment is that I don't see the RALO-ALS structure as viable right now. I am speaking with a North American bias, clearly, but there are only a scant handful of people in the NA-RALO. To say that the NA-RALO is an adequate representation of the North American user community would be absurd, no disrespect of my NA colleagues at all intended, of course. It may work better in LAC and AP.> ________________________________________> From: carlos aguirre [carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com]> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:40 AM> To: Brendler, Beau; patrick@vande-walle.eu; At-Large Worldwide> Subject: RE: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities> > We have said at the ALAC statement, few months ago, that the ALAC and end users must have more participation in GNSO, and this GNSO restructure open the door to that. IMHO is better so the first option. but, of course is a desition to will take us.> > Carlos Dionisio Aguirre> abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -> *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423> www.sitioderecho.com.ar<http://www.sitioderecho.com.ar/>> www.densi.com.ar<http://www.densi.com.ar/>> > > > From: Brenbe@consumer.org> > To: patrick@vande-walle.eu; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:21:43 -0500> > Subject: Re: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities> >> > Personally, I think option two is better overall for users. It also takes into account what's going on within the NCUC.> >> > As for the legitimacy issue, I think that can be resolved with some screening and some written criteria.> > ________________________________________> > From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle [patrick@vande-walle.eu]> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:59 AM> > To: At-Large Worldwide> > Subject: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities> >> > I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with> > other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be> > the only entity to represent individual internet users.> >> > The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments> > welcome.> >> > ----------------------> >> > 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different> > groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these> > groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the> > only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other> > issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC> > members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up.> >> > 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community.> > The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold.> > The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly> > identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There> > is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these> > groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to> > the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if> > the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context.> >> >> > On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical> > issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the> > policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account> > that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work.> >> >> > Relationship with other ICANN entities> >> > 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and> > concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes> >> > 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of> > the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN> > entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice> >> > 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be> > strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and> > within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues> >> > _______________________________________________> > ALAC mailing list> > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac> >> > ***> > Scanned> >> > **> > This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.> >> > _______________________________________________> > ALAC mailing list> > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac> > ________________________________> Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. Internet Explorer 7<http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar>> ***> Scanned> > **> This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system. _________________________________________________________________ Ingresá ya a MSN en Concierto y disfrutá los recitales en vivo de tus artistas favoritos. http://msninconcert.msn.com/music/archive/es-la/archive.aspx
I still prefer Option 2, allowing multiple channels, while, ALAC can still remain as a major channel for indivdual Internet users to ICANN process. As for the definition or distinction, first of all we should stick with the word "individual Internet users", not just "users" or "end-users". That is inline with what Jacquline wrote. To me, "individual Internet user" mean those users who are using the Internet for himself or herself, but not for the organization or group he or she is enaged. Still not clear, I know.... but that the sort of dillemma we all are facing. I also like to see some additional mechanism to allow individuals participate in AtLarge activities in substantial manner without belonging to any ALS, let alone RALO. That does not mean that person will get voting right for ArLarge related elections, but voices for policy issues. izumi
Izumi, I may be wrong on this, but it is my impression that the at-large list and at-large wg lists are open to anyone interested, not just ALSes Patrick Izumi AIZU wrote, On 3/11/08 17:59:
I still prefer Option 2, allowing multiple channels, while, ALAC can still remain as a major channel for indivdual Internet users to ICANN process.
As for the definition or distinction, first of all we should stick with the word "individual Internet users", not just "users" or "end-users". That is inline with what Jacquline wrote. To me, "individual Internet user" mean those users who are using the Internet for himself or herself, but not for the organization or group he or she is enaged. Still not clear, I know.... but that the sort of dillemma we all are facing.
I also like to see some additional mechanism to allow individuals participate in AtLarge activities in substantial manner without belonging to any ALS, let alone RALO. That does not mean that person will get voting right for ArLarge related elections, but voices for policy issues.
izumi
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
I agree except for one little distinction: ALAC to be the ONLY channel for "individual internet users" as defined as in their individual life, with other channels for individals in their other roles So I as an academic could belong to both AtLarge and NCUC in 2 different roles. I agree that RALOS MUST create a mechanism to allow individuals to participate without forcing them to join an ALS - the concern is with capture, but policy voice is what is important, and we are intelligent ppl so we can work out a mechanism, I am sure. Jacqueline Izumi AIZU wrote:
I still prefer Option 2, allowing multiple channels, while, ALAC can still remain as a major channel for indivdual Internet users to ICANN process.
As for the definition or distinction, first of all we should stick with the word "individual Internet users", not just "users" or "end-users". That is inline with what Jacquline wrote. To me, "individual Internet user" mean those users who are using the Internet for himself or herself, but not for the organization or group he or she is enaged. Still not clear, I know.... but that the sort of dillemma we all are facing.
I also like to see some additional mechanism to allow individuals participate in AtLarge activities in substantial manner without belonging to any ALS, let alone RALO. That does not mean that person will get voting right for ArLarge related elections, but voices for policy issues.
izumi
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
YES. I totally agree with Jacqueline here. D ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: Mon 11/3/2008 11:04 AM To: Izumi AIZU Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities I agree except for one little distinction: ALAC to be the ONLY channel for "individual internet users" as defined as in their individual life, with other channels for individals in their other roles So I as an academic could belong to both AtLarge and NCUC in 2 different roles. I agree that RALOS MUST create a mechanism to allow individuals to participate without forcing them to join an ALS - the concern is with capture, but policy voice is what is important, and we are intelligent ppl so we can work out a mechanism, I am sure. Jacqueline Izumi AIZU wrote:
I still prefer Option 2, allowing multiple channels, while, ALAC can still remain as a major channel for indivdual Internet users to ICANN process.
As for the definition or distinction, first of all we should stick with the word "individual Internet users", not just "users" or "end-users". That is inline with what Jacquline wrote. To me, "individual Internet user" mean those users who are using the Internet for himself or herself, but not for the organization or group he or she is enaged. Still not clear, I know.... but that the sort of dillemma we all are facing.
I also like to see some additional mechanism to allow individuals participate in AtLarge activities in substantial manner without belonging to any ALS, let alone RALO. That does not mean that person will get voting right for ArLarge related elections, but voices for policy issues.
izumi
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
I agreed with Jacqueline with further points 1. ALAC, RALOS MUST create innovative mechanism to facilitate more ALS- should be efficient outreach, bottom up approaches to allow any interested individual to be part of the process. 2. this is more practical to organise individuals as far as policy voice is concerned. Thu Hue -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:04 PM To: Izumi AIZU Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities I agree except for one little distinction: ALAC to be the ONLY channel for "individual internet users" as defined as in their individual life, with other channels for individals in their other roles So I as an academic could belong to both AtLarge and NCUC in 2 different roles. I agree that RALOS MUST create a mechanism to allow individuals to participate without forcing them to join an ALS - the concern is with capture, but policy voice is what is important, and we are intelligent ppl so we can work out a mechanism, I am sure. Jacqueline Izumi AIZU wrote:
I still prefer Option 2, allowing multiple channels, while, ALAC can still remain as a major channel for indivdual Internet users to ICANN process.
As for the definition or distinction, first of all we should stick with the word "individual Internet users", not just "users" or "end-users". That is inline with what Jacquline wrote. To me, "individual Internet user" mean those users who are using the Internet for himself or herself, but not for the organization or group he or she is enaged. Still not clear, I know.... but that the sort of dillemma we all are facing.
I also like to see some additional mechanism to allow individuals participate in AtLarge activities in substantial manner without belonging to any ALS, let alone RALO. That does not mean that person will get voting right for ArLarge related elections, but voices for policy issues.
izumi
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
I agree with Jacqueline! Fatimata On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Nguyen Thu Hue <huenguyen@netnam.vn> wrote:
I agreed with Jacqueline with further points
1. ALAC, RALOS MUST create innovative mechanism to facilitate more ALS- should be efficient outreach, bottom up approaches to allow any interested individual to be part of the process. 2. this is more practical to organise individuals as far as policy voice is concerned.
Thu Hue
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:04 PM To: Izumi AIZU Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities
I agree except for one little distinction: ALAC to be the ONLY channel for "individual internet users" as defined as in their individual life, with other channels for individals in their other roles So I as an academic could belong to both AtLarge and NCUC in 2 different roles.
I agree that RALOS MUST create a mechanism to allow individuals to participate without forcing them to join an ALS - the concern is with capture, but policy voice is what is important, and we are intelligent ppl so we can work out a mechanism, I am sure.
Jacqueline Izumi AIZU wrote:
I still prefer Option 2, allowing multiple channels, while, ALAC can still remain as a major channel for indivdual Internet users to ICANN process.
As for the definition or distinction, first of all we should stick with the word "individual Internet users", not just "users" or "end-users". That is inline with what Jacquline wrote. To me, "individual Internet user" mean those users who are using the Internet for himself or herself, but not for the organization or group he or she is enaged. Still not clear, I know.... but that the sort of dillemma we all are facing.
I also like to see some additional mechanism to allow individuals participate in AtLarge activities in substantial manner without belonging to any ALS, let alone RALO. That does not mean that person will get voting right for ArLarge related elections, but voices for policy issues.
izumi
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla Presidente Bokk Jang Bokk Jeff Coordonnatrice ACSIS - Senegal BP : 22336 Dakar Senegal Tel : 221 33 864 4284 / 1301 552 8282 email : fsylla@gmail.com fsylla@orange.sn
Interesting observation. Milton seems quite strict on multiple hats. Although he did not said AL and NCUC would be mutually exclusive, will they accept AL? Hong On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris < jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
I agree except for one little distinction: ALAC to be the ONLY channel for "individual internet users" as defined as in their individual life, with other channels for individals in their other roles So I as an academic could belong to both AtLarge and NCUC in 2 different roles.
I agree that RALOS MUST create a mechanism to allow individuals to participate without forcing them to join an ALS - the concern is with capture, but policy voice is what is important, and we are intelligent ppl so we can work out a mechanism, I am sure.
Jacqueline
Izumi AIZU wrote:
I still prefer Option 2, allowing multiple channels, while, ALAC can still remain as a major channel for indivdual Internet users to ICANN process.
As for the definition or distinction, first of all we should stick with the word "individual Internet users", not just "users" or "end-users". That is inline with what Jacquline wrote. To me, "individual Internet user" mean those users who are using the Internet for himself or herself, but not for the organization or group he or she is enaged. Still not clear, I know.... but that the sort of dillemma we all are facing.
I also like to see some additional mechanism to allow individuals participate in AtLarge activities in substantial manner without belonging to any ALS, let alone RALO. That does not mean that person will get voting right for ArLarge related elections, but voices for policy issues.
izumi
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
I would prefer Option 1 and include anyone who would identify him/her self as an end-user. Fatimata On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:40 AM, carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com>wrote:
We have said at the ALAC statement, few months ago, that the ALAC and end users must have more participation in GNSO, and this GNSO restructure open the door to that. IMHO is better so the first option. but, of course is a desition to will take us.
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > From: Brenbe@consumer.org> To: patrick@vande-walle.eu; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:21:43 -0500> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities> > Personally, I think option two is better overall for users. It also takes into account what's going on within the NCUC.> > As for the legitimacy issue, I think that can be resolved with some screening and some written criteria.> ________________________________________> From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle [patrick@vande-walle.eu]> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:59 AM> To: At-Large Worldwide> Subject: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities> > I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with> other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be> the only entity to represent individual internet users.> > The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments> welcome.> > ----------------------> > 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different> groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these> groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the> only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other> issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC> members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up.> > 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community.> The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold.> The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly> identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There> is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these> groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to> the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if> the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context.> > > On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical> issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the> policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account> that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work.> > > Relationship with other ICANN entities> > 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and> concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes> > 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of> the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN> entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice> > 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be> strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and> within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues> > _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac> > ***> Scanned> > **> This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.> > _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla Presidente Bokk Jang Bokk Jeff Coordonnatrice ACSIS - Senegal BP : 22336 Dakar Senegal Tel : 221 33 864 4284 / 1301 552 8282 email : fsylla@gmail.com fsylla@orange.sn
participants (9)
-
Brendler, Beau -
carlos aguirre -
Fatimata Seye Sylla -
Hong Xue -
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Nguyen Thu Hue -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Thompson, Darlene