(North American list not cc'd, I'm not a member. I think it would be a good idea not to cross post to all ALAC lists. And changed the subject line a little. ) Does anyone have information about recent discussion of ICANN regions? There was some talk before the Lisbon meeting, some ccTLD managers are interested in changing the current country/region alignments, and there was a suggestion to create sub-regions or new additional regions (Asia, Australia and Pacific too large, Arab states not well represented, etc.) See <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm> Another issue to consider in the ALAC review? Adam At 12:12 PM -0400 4/11/07, Jacqueline A. Morris 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
_______________________________________________ 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