Evan, Please note that I wrote 'a problem...', so as I indicated in my earlier response to Patrick, there may be other reasons why you may get consistent under- or over-representation from certain territories. I think Jacqueline is right in suggesting that the problem be brought to the attention of Nom-Comm review group. My personal opinion is that even the idea of 'regions' based on traditional geography and their quotas are things that has to be re-examined. At this time two fifths of any regional representaion in ICANN comes from the Americas; historical legacy, yes, but perhaps time to put in a more flexible and dynamic mechanism for representation quotas. To me the advantage of retaining Nom-Comm (perhaps with a gradual diminishing of share) is to ensure balance of various sorts. Siavash
Siavash Shahshahani wrote:
Here's a problem for those who think non-comm appointees are unnecessary: There are more than a few countries where NGOs are looked upon with suspicion by the local govt and potential ALSs are simply afraid to apply to ICANN for accreditation. Should we disenfranchise citizens of those countries? Note that the same risk may not necessarily apply to an 'individual' selected by non-comm as long as the individual is well-known and trusted in the country and is not in the business of organizing a group which the govt deems potentially subversive. I agree that this is a problem, but its solution is beyond the scope of the NomComm, for a number of reasons:
1) It involves a deeper involvement in politics than may be desirable.
2) There is a finite limit to the number of NomComm ALAC reps; in a region where multiple instances of these obstacles occur, who is to judge which countries have voice and which do not?
3) The NomComm appears to have a built-in bias against the inexperienced, although I would add that this is reasonable given the actual mandate that the NomComm has regarding its choices for ALAC.
4) ALSs participate at the RALO level, and each region gets two selections to ALAC. It is unfair to the other ALSs if people get to immediately participate at a higher level (ALAC instead of RALO) only because they come from a country which impedes NGO development.
I suggest that the answer is to achieve this empowerment through the RALOs rather than through the NomComm, where the issue has already been addressed in at least one region. NARALO explicitly developed its internal structure to allow and encourage participation by individuals who are not part of ALSs.
Why did ALAC not provide guidance to all RALOs to address this issue? Doing so would encourage individual participation at the RALO level (in unlimited numbers) from every country with the problems described by Siavash. Please consider the process with the greater level of transparency, accountability, public participation and regional awareness.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------