I didn't want to prolong this, but curiosity got the better of me... I promise to let it go after this... How did these rights get taken away? By whom? How did all these At Large advocates, with direct representation on the Board, lose their franchise? What did the directly elected Board members do to stop it? Is there an objective analysis of the failure anywhere with lessons learnt so that we may not repeat the mistakes? Besides - if these rights were taken away so long ago and you've been fighting for them to be returned for so long and haven't had any success, maybe it's time to change tactics? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:06 PM To: 'Danny Younger'; 'Wendy Seltzer'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO The "global" elections way back when didn't include 1.3 million Trinidad and Tobago people, and it didn't represent me. The LACRALO represents me. My people's voices are raised in it, and listened to in it. I think that the more representative of the global population ALAC gets, with more and more people having a say via their regions, the more likely the At-Large is to have more say on the global IG stage (not just ICANN). I have a different view to yours because I believe that there are many people who would remain disenfranchised by such an approach. How would the telecentres and community groups in the rural areas of Trinidad and Tobago and other developing nations be able to participate? Now, the RALO includes ALSes that go out to those areas, talk to them and bring back their concerns, issues and views. ICANN's RALO structure has reached out to us, in a way that nothing else ever did, except the WSIS. So, yes, I am willing to work with this structure, and I will continue to focus on getting full global participation in the IG structures, including ICANN. I can see us having influence via this mechanism. I haven't seen ANY suggestion coming from you that focuses on allowing the other millions and millions and millions of Internet users who do not live in the developed world to participate on any sort of equal basis with the Internet elite who have been involved since the year dot. Talking about second-class status - we didn't have any status under the previous systems. Second class is a step up, and the next step will take us to first class. The review is an opportunity, not something that requires us to sit passively by and allow others to determine our path. It's an opportunity for the At Large to look at the years past, and the future - to decide where we want to go, who we want to represent and in what way. Sometimes it seems to me as if some people just want to roll back the clock to the days when all of this was a small and closed club, with people who all thought alike. Well, it isn't that anymore. It's diverse, (and hopefully rapidly getting more and more diverse) and we have different cultures and different views and different ways of doing things. And we will think differently. And all of those different views require respect. I try to understand and work with cultures that are different to mine. I may not always succeed, but I try. I don't see that consideration and respect coming from all of us in the At Large as yet. I hope it comes soon, otherwise we will definitely have problems moving ahead to what seems to be a similar final goal. And that would be a great pity. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:47 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; 'Wendy Seltzer'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO Hi Jacqueline, I can remember when we had elected at-large directors. I am one of those that remains willing to fight for what is right -- the return of the representation that has been denied to us. The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited they want to help out in any way that they can. Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control over a budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which their input has been ignored over and over again. You are a Chair of a body that purportedly has the best interest of the At-Large at heart, yet you doggedly refuse to stand up and fight for the representation that has been taken away from our community. You should be ashamed. One shouldn't cower in a corner and let others (like a Review Committee) point out the proper path for your community. This is about self-empowerment and deciding for yourself which is the best way forward. There was a time when ccTLD managers were part of the DNSO. They left that organization to start their own Supporting Organization. They had the guts to do what was best for them. This conversation is all about asking the important questions, such as: why should we accept a structure (ALAC/RALO) that institutionalizes a permanent disenfranchisement of our rights? Without your right to board-level representation you have nothing in the realpolitik world of ICANN. --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Danny You could consider that the RALO structure may be adjusted to allow the At Large to nominate representatives to the Board - this was mentioned in the Lisbon meeting as a possibility. It might be a recommendation from the External review- who knows?
Yet again, LAC (I know as I am a member) and quite a few of the other regions (from conversations with them) see value in the RALOs. Did you spend some time talking to other regions, and even some members in your own NA region to get their feedback as to what they find interesting and useful about the RALOS rather than insist that all of us are wrong and foolish and your way is the ONLY correct way? I saw a message from Darlene on the list that seemed to imply that her organization found the RALO useful. Have you spoken to people of like mind to see why?
If you don't find it useful, and you prefer other pathways to participate in ICANN processes, that's fine. But if others want to work within this structure, let them go ahead. Not everyone in the world thinks like you do, and the rest of us have as much right to choose our pathway to participation. You've mentioned writing directly to the ICANN Board, or joining the NonCommercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the General Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. So that's a lot of different ways for participation. Add the RALOs as one more, one that many people are finding useful.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO
There has been some discussion about the possibility of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2
/000588.html
With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it necessary to ask the question: "In the last four and a half years has any regionally-specific issue emerged that would actually justify the creation of the Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?"
I haven't seen any such issue, have you?
Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets.
I continue to have problems with the concept of following a bad model for the At-Large just because a bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us no other options.
An even worse idea is trying to finalize arrangements for a North American RALO at a time when many are questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing purpose.
In my view, we should be pressing instead for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large community that seats its members onto the ICANN Board. This was a plan originally proposed by ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO).
Anything less than this distracts from the goal of achieving representation. All of us have a large number of ways by which we may "participate" already such as having our organizations write directly to the ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the Non Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. We really don't need a regional construct just to achieve participation.
Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that puts our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than on models that continue to deny us the representation that is our right.
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ 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
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM _______________________________________________ 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM