I agree. The only thing is that given the way that the last NCUC/ALAC
meeting that I attended went, it will be important to structure the discussion
so that it doesn’t degenerate into a rant on how ALAC isn’t what it
was years ago, and how it should be scrapped without any more practical
solutions being voiced.
With regard to the draft guidelines, I think they are OK, but I
do have a concern about the number of votes to turn down an application.
Instead of ¾ votes for approval, we now have ¾ votes required for non-approval.
So it’s basically an automatic approval process, which I don’t have
a problem with, personally, but it needs to be considered seriously, as this is
a major change in philosophy for the ALAC. From past discussions, I know Wendy
is (of the ALAC members who were involved in that discussion still here so far)
pro automatic approval, and I tend towards the same point of view, but other may
have different positions.
Jacqueline
From: Izumi AIZU
[mailto:iza@anr.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:23 PM
To: Wendy Seltzer
Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS
applications
I agree with Wendy that NCUC
and ALAC should cooperate and supplement, not compete. With that in mind, I
propose to have a join ALAC - NCUC meeting in Lisbon which we used to have at every
ICANN meeting. The best timing would be on Tuesday, during our second ALAC
meeting, for say 60 minutes. Either from around 5 pm, or after we conclude our
business.
Given LSE report, ALS application issues, and coming ALAC review, etc, I thinkg
it's important to address the functions and positions of these two
committee/consituency and also larger civil society/user participation at ICANN
process - for not only ALC, but also for ALS/RALOs.
Many thanks,
izumi
2007/3/6, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
(moving discussion to public
list, since guidelines are linked publicly)
Interesting, but plainly different from what we've been operating under
to date. Your second criterion would not be my interpretation of the
Bylaws' command that ALSs be "established in such a way that
participation by individual Internet users ... will predominate in the
operation of each At-Large Structure."
Given that this is the only place individuals are recognized as
participants, I'd hate to water down their voices even more by putting
them in contention with organizations. Further, I'd rather see ALAC
and
NCUC cooperating than competing for members. I think it's right for
us
to suggest that orgs-of-orgs join the NCUC.
--Wendy
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Dear Committee:
>
> I'm happy to be able to get this to you now - sorry for the delay but I
thought
> it would be important that it be very solid from a legal perspective.
>
> It is attached to the agenda page now too
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> Director, At-Large
> ICANN
> PO Box 32160
> London N4 2XY
> United Kingdom
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org
www.icannalac.org
--
>>
Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society
Kumon
Center, Tama University
* * * * *
<<
Writing the Future of the History >>
www.anr.org
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 8:07
AM