Hi everyone The evaluation process and criteria have been up for vote 2x and the ALAC has voted to postpone 2x. I sincerely hope that the whole ALAC will be ready to debate and vote in San Juan. We absolutely have to have a written criteria document approved, whatever it says, and we MUST change the process to take into consideration the RALO MoUs. The 2 draft documents are available on the wiki. I would like everyone to read and comment between now and June 24th so that we will all be ready to vote on this in San Juan. Thanks Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:09 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application Alan, Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec). Regards, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 21 mai 2007 18:25 To: Luc Faubert Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application
Luc, thanks for asking the question. I have been expecting such a question, and although as Randy said, I may not be under any obligation to "justify" my vote, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this. And thanks to those who answered on my behalf (I am in Europe and just got back from a long day's work).
The Telecommunities Canada (TC) application was made some months ago, and has been the subject of significant discussion among at least some ALAC members. The major issue has not been whether they are doing good things for the Internet in Canada, but rather do they meet the criteria set forth in the Bylaws. The wording in question is that "individuals will predominate in operation of the ALS". Although I am relatively new to the ALAC, I understand that for all ALS applications to date, this has meant that individual members either directly participate in the organization management or that they select the management group. TC is an organization of organizations. Although they do allow individual honorary members under some conditions, they explicitly exclude them from voting.
As Nick has pointed out, this is not the only way to interpret the phrase in the Bylaws. However, based on my experience as a member of various Boards, and on personal inclination, I do not believe that it is appropriate or even legally defensible to change the long-standing interpretation in an ad hoc, undocumented and uncoordinated fashion. To date the ALAC (and its members) has been using one interpretation. It is quite fair game to change that interpretation, but it should be done consciously and based on a formal decision of the committee as a whole. I do not think that it is right for some or even all ALAC members to privately decide to use a different interpretation. Aside from other problems with this, it opens the possibility of using different criteria for different applications - a cardinal sin in my opinion.
I have been advocating a formal discussion and vote on whether to change the interpretation and if so how. Several moths later, this has not yet happened. As Nick points out, it is scheduled to be discussed in San Juan, but it was also scheduled to be discussed in Lisbon.
If you detect a bit of frustration in my tone, you are right.
I voted "no" and with it made a statement to the committee expressing my frustration "that given the time that we have been talking about this one, we could not have found the time for a substantive discussion and decision on ALS criteria." This vote was in line with the long-standing and in my mind still-current interpretation consistently used by the ALAC.
This vote was admittedly made easier because I happened to vote very late and I knew that there were already sufficient "yes" votes to accredit TC. If my vote had been a deciding one, I am honestly not sure how I would have handled the situation.
I would not presume to speculate why some other ALAC members voted as they did. I can only assume that they voted based on their understanding of the rules and reading of the documents and that is fine with me.
The vote of the committee now stands, regardless of the logic used by the individual members in determining their votes, and I am not at all unhappy to welcome Telecommunities Canada as an ALS, and as one that will serve its constituency and ICANN well.
I still feel that if we are to alter the Bylaw criteria interpretation it needs to be done in a conscious way, and then used consistently. Hopefully that will happen before we get yet another such application.
Regards, Alan
At 5/21/2007 09:33 AM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Hi Alan,
May I ask why you voted NO for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application?
Telecommunities Canada is one of the (if not the) foremost organizations doing work related to the Internet in Canada. TC has been working tirelessly for almost 15 years, advancing the cause of Internet use and penetration in Canada.
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM