GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
Dear All: As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO. As a part of that work, the working group was also engaged in negotiations with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies. The Joint Statement that resulted from those discussions was posted to the public comment forum today, and is accessible at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html. The Working Group also produced a draft statement for transmission to the Board of Directors by the ALAC in its role as an Advisory Committee. That document was subject to a community comment period, and the working group incorporated those comments received however, the working group took the decision that it would be better to wait to finalise the text until after the Joint Statement was finished, so that the At-Large community could take one final look at the two statements, make any comments, and if necessary those comments could then be dealt with in the ALAC¹s individual statement. The ALAC also discussed the progress on this issue at its meeting earlier this month. The Staff have been asked to post a version of the ALAC statement, as well as the Joint Statement, so that comments can be taken. It is envisaged that we will be able to take comments for a few days as the statement can be transmitted to the board following the end of the public comment period on the GNSO Improvements draft, which finishes on the 24th of April. You may access both the draft ALAC Statement, and the Joint Statement, from this URL. Please do use the comment button to provide any comments you care to make. https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statemen t_on_gnso_improvements -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
The Ad-Hoc GNSO Improvements Statement Drafting Group is composed of: C Aguirre (LACRALO) A Greenberg (NARALO) C Langdon-Orr (APRALO/ALAC Chair), V Cretu (EURALO) M El Bashir (AFRALO), and V Scartezini (LACRALO/Vice Chair) These are the people that Staff tells us secretly negotiated a deal with the BC, IPC, ISP and NCUC constituencies. ... and this WG, of course, has no public archives. Although we were promised at the ALAC Monthly teleconference that a community organizational model would be presented for public discussion to the At-Large community on 15 April or 16 April, we were never shown that model; it remained a secret until the "Joint Statement" was posted this morning. Other groups honored a commitment to their members and made the model available for constituency discussion as early as late March (IPC), April 10 (BC), April 15 (ISP). The ALAC WG members apparently had no such regard for their own community. Making matters worse, the position that they agreed to is a far cry from the Draft Statement that the WG circulated on 21 March. -- What happened to their initial focus on individual internet users as a distinct voting bloc? -- What happened to their proposal regarding domain name resellers? -- What happened to the belief that "At-Large is in the process of being reviewed and to suggest any changes to the structure of the community as it presently exists could prejudice the outcome of the review"? -- What happened to the sentiment that "We do not have in mind a particular voting structure for involvement of the Internet endusers voice, but are open to any proposal that provides for participation on an equitable basis"? What happened to all the public comments that were sent through on the topic of GNSO Improvements? Were any of them even read by WG members? I recall JFC's proposal regarding consumer organizations and Roberto Gaetano's push for participation of the individual registrants in the GNSO. I recall Ross Rader arguing against the arbitrary commercial/non-commercial distinction. I recall Beau Brendler passionately arguing with Roberto about the need to extend representation to all users. We see none of that in the Joint Statement. Call me a cynic, but I don't believe for a moment that WG members were actively involved in sustained negotiations with the other constituencies... the members of this WG can't even manage a sustained discussion on this list, let alone between four different constituencies. This event strikes me as an action taken independently and arrogantly by the ALAC Chair. But this is just speculation on my part, and like Brett I'm waiting to hear the truth of this matter from those that collaborated on the Joint Statement. I would love to know why our public input into this process has thus far been ignored or cast aside by the ALAC leadership. I would like to know why we weren't privy to the documentary text at the same time as other constituencies. I would like to know if this is how the ALAC intends to behave in the future. I would like to know when the ALAC will begin respecting the need for a comment period of suitable length. Final comments to the ICANN Board Governance Committee are due on Friday. There has already been one formal extension to the comment period, and there has been no formal request for a further extension of time. The ALAC shouldn't be putting its ALSs in this one-day-to-prepare-comments-position. This is the epitome of irresponsible behavior. --- At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All:
As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Sorry Danny. please, when you inform about something, try to inform yourself first. this group was wich made a GNSO improvement`s document from ALAC, but not wich made a last joint document with other constituencies neither negotiate secretly nothing. In fact, your atitude make me feel very upset. I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you personally in the next meeting. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:19:54 -0700> From: dannyyounger@yahoo.com> To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested> > The Ad-Hoc GNSO Improvements Statement Drafting Group> is composed of:> > C Aguirre (LACRALO) > A Greenberg (NARALO) > C Langdon-Orr (APRALO/ALAC Chair), > V Cretu (EURALO) > M El Bashir (AFRALO), and > V Scartezini (LACRALO/Vice Chair)> > These are the people that Staff tells us secretly> negotiated a deal with the BC, IPC, ISP and NCUC> constituencies. > > ... and this WG, of course, has no public archives.> > Although we were promised at the ALAC Monthly> teleconference that a community organizational model > would be presented for public discussion to the> At-Large community on 15 April or 16 April, we were> never shown that model; it remained a secret until the> "Joint Statement" was posted this morning.> > Other groups honored a commitment to their members and> made the model available for constituency discussion> as early as late March (IPC), April 10 (BC), April 15> (ISP).> > The ALAC WG members apparently had no such regard for> their own community. > > Making matters worse, the position that they agreed to> is a far cry from the Draft Statement that the WG> circulated on 21 March. > > -- What happened to their initial focus on individual> internet users as a distinct voting bloc? > -- What happened to their proposal regarding domain> name resellers? > -- What happened to the belief that "At-Large is in> the process of being reviewed and to suggest any> changes to the structure of the community as it> presently exists could prejudice the outcome of the> review"?> -- What happened to the sentiment that "We do not have> in mind a particular voting structure for involvement> of the Internet endusers voice, but are open to any> proposal that provides for participation on an> equitable basis"?> > What happened to all the public comments that were> sent through on the topic of GNSO Improvements? Were> any of them even read by WG members? > > I recall JFC's proposal regarding consumer> organizations and Roberto Gaetano's push for> participation of the individual registrants in the> GNSO. I recall Ross Rader arguing against the> arbitrary commercial/non-commercial distinction. I> recall Beau Brendler passionately arguing with Roberto> about the need to extend representation to all users. > > We see none of that in the Joint Statement. > > Call me a cynic, but I don't believe for a moment that> WG members were actively involved in sustained> negotiations with the other constituencies... the> members of this WG can't even manage a sustained> discussion on this list, let alone between four> different constituencies.> > This event strikes me as an action taken independently> and arrogantly by the ALAC Chair. > > But this is just speculation on my part, and like> Brett I'm waiting to hear the truth of this matter> from those that collaborated on the Joint Statement.> > I would love to know why our public input into this> process has thus far been ignored or cast aside by the> ALAC leadership. I would like to know why we weren't> privy to the documentary text at the same time as> other constituencies. I would like to know if this is> how the ALAC intends to behave in the future. I would> like to know when the ALAC will begin respecting the> need for a comment period of suitable length.> > Final comments to the ICANN Board Governance Committee> are due on Friday. There has already been one formal> extension to the comment period, and there has been no> formal request for a further extension of time. The> ALAC shouldn't be putting its ALSs in this> one-day-to-prepare-comments-position. This is the> epitome of irresponsible behavior.> > > --- At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:> > > Dear All:> > > > As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO> > Improvements, with> > representatives of each RALO, has been working on a> > response > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> Be a better friend, newshound, and > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> > _______________________________________________> 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://atlarge.icann.org _________________________________________________________________ Ingresá ya a MSN en Concierto y disfrutá los recitales en vivo de tus artistas favoritos. http://msninconcert.msn.com/music/archive/es-la/archive.aspx
Carlos, Re-read the first two sentences written by ICANN Staff: "As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO. As a part of that work, THE WORKING GROUP WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN NEGOTIATIONS (*emphasis mine*) with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies." Staff is saying that your group negotiated with the other constituencies. Apparently, you are denying that claim. So, who is speaking the truth? --- carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sorry Danny. please, when you inform about something, try to inform yourself first.
this group was wich made a GNSO improvement`s document from ALAC, but not wich made a last joint document with other constituencies neither negotiate secretly nothing.
In fact, your atitude make me feel very upset. I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you personally in the next meeting.
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Hello Carlos,
Sorry Danny. please, when you inform about something, try to inform yourself first.
this group was wich made a GNSO improvement`s document from ALAC, but not wich made a last joint document with other constituencies neither negotiate secretly nothing.
In fact, your atitude make me feel very upset. I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you personally in the next meeting.
In this case at least, Danny far from alone in his anger on this issue, so I ask you to please do not take issue personally with him. There are numerous complains within NARALO on the document, the process used to achieve it, and the level of consultation with the general At-Large community. In the view of everyone who has expressed an opinion within NARALO, this is a major step backwards in the evolution of ALAC after a long and tortured period of progress. Unlike Danny I will make no assumptions regarding how things were actually done; however, based on what we have seen this issue has been handled in a totally unacceptable manner. It is a fact that late changes were made to the document that directly affect -- and refer to -- ALSs and RALOs without their awareness or consultation. The changes contain language that adversely affect ALAC's own participation in the proposed new GNSO. It is also a fact that these changes were not conveyed to us by ALAC, not to RALO secretariats nor to individual ALSs; it was only the diligence of a number of NARALO members that brought this serious news to our attention. And finally ... the fact that the deadline for public comments exists just a few days after the final draft was published is absolutely unconscionable. It is an abdication of the authors' responsibility to the At-Large community to offer so little time to respond. So, Carlos, please do not take this personally with Danny. At least within NARALO, the anger over this issue is both deep and widespread. It is highly likely that we will submit a response that completely disassociates us from the recommendations, and states that they do not have the support of the At-Large community (at least in our region). - Evan
Thank you for posting this information and particularly outlining the processes that have gone on, in the development of these two related (in fact intertwined) documents... Brett, the document/draft development process the ALAC used for this Joint Statement has (at least to some extent) been outlined by Nick's release of documents and call for comment message, but I am going to take the liberty of expanding on several matters here in this somewhat lengthy missive... And I sincerely hope that you will see there was no intent to keep discussions on 'the internal mailing list' -> yes some preemptive ones occurred (see below) but I felt that this only served to better inform the RALO representatives on that list about the background /development of this foreshadowed document and allowed them to be better prepared to respond with comments when it was finalized and released, particularly when we were aware of the very tight time line we were working to... *On the matter of timelines* however please note that the I have requested Nick to explore what small extension we might be able to get on the public comment period because of the unexpectedly late arrival of the final Joint Statement. I trust that all who have comments to make regarding the Joint Statement will use the mechanisms for comment that have been set up for wide community input via the Wiki... As foreshadowed in previous messages/Committee/ WG discussions that occurred when the ALAC statement was posted for initial community review last month, The Joint Statement is going to act as an appendix to our earlier and reviewed ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements document, to address the matters of a proposed GNSO structure and voting alternative from a User perspective, that were specifically NOT included in that as we were working in parallel on the Joint Statement at the time... Any comments or issues with the Joint Statement however can be incorporated into our ALAC Statement at this stage, (via the use of the Wiki page Comments button please) so in effect the community is getting an additional opportunity for comment and review now that they have a chance to look at the content and specifics of the Joint Statement ... Please note that comments received in the review of the ALAC statement (which did not focus on the matters of proposed alternate structure and voting- as that was the focus of the Joint Statement) regarding desires and models for structure *were* to the best of the RALO representatives in the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG imbedded into the Joint Statement wherever possible and the use of language such as User rather than Registrant etc., is reflective of this as an example... There has been some recent discussion / disappointment diatribes posted to the Internal and NARALO lists regarding the Joint Statement in terms of both process of its development and its content and validity... This was a result of Beau Brendler raising in the internal list some language change questions (also followed up then by Wendy) between versions of the developing Joint Statement sourced from list run by other constituencies (ipconstituency list is the actual example) earlier this week... Specifically to the matter of 'had the language changes diminished the intention to ensure Consumer Organisations and Universities a mechanism to have their voices heard'? in the version 3 language... I took the opportunity then, to reply to the internal list with the following text...<sent Wed 4/23/2008 8:54AM (aest)> " Hi Beau (and now Wendy).... The draft you are referring to is a v3 of a document that the v4 should have been released to me and the others working on the joint user statement, several hours ago, but which I've yet to receive... and that version has a few additional changes that have been agreed to... But your raising of these points is however very timely, as the Final should be out to us all in short order... Firstly to the history and rational behind the specific language shift you identify... As anyone who has ever worked on a collaborative document with a group of similarly intended but specifically different (in term of the variety of existing (or otherwise) representational history and interests in terms of their particular constituencies) drafters acting in committee (who themselves are being advised by subcommittee) will realize significant language change (wordsmithing) happens between versions... In this case it was the NCUC (who represent the universities) who suggested the change and the rest of us agreed that we needed to clearly partition the role of ALAC as an AC from the important intent of At-Large (inclusive of all users registrants or otherwise) as an equitable part of a reformed GNSO with regard to both the structure of such a body AND with regards to voting... This is the intent of the current wording and in no way indicates a downgrading or shift away from the importance of Consumer Groups and Universities as input nodes to this, rather it does not specifically list them over any other class or nomenclature of User (registrant or non Registrant) and indeed as Consumer Groups are just as likely to be an ALS and involved in RALO activities as a University is to have 'membership' of the NCUC; the use of the following text "...(the non-commercial constituency, the At Large Structures and individuals drawn from the Regional At-Large Organisations) with an updated program and membership scope..." was agreed to be more inclusive rather than exclusive language to use... And regarding the 'discussion' on the developmental drafts, the ALAC input has been specifically contributed by the GNSO Improvements WG that has representation from all RALO's and we have taken a great deal of care to encompass and consider all the At-Large comments and suggestions on this topic, both generally and specifically in response to the associated ALAC statement on GNSO improvements posted more than a month ago now which specifically does NOT refer to structure as this joint document does, but will be presented as an overarching response from the ALAC, with the Joint documentation appended by the close of the public comment period on April 25th... I hope this helps clarify the language changes, and I do trust that as promised the v4 document will be in our hands shortly... CLO" <end cut and paste> I hope that reproducing it here also helps inform this wider list audience of the processes that (as ALAC via its WG) we were/have been undertaking... I do not think it appropriate that I comment on discussions that then ran on the NARALO list per se (as I believe the autonomy of RALO debate is essential) but I would like to make clear my extreme personal disappointment that the NARALO (or at least some members thereof) feel that they were not being adequately included or represented in the development phase (pre release before the for comment period) of the Joint Statement by their representative on the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG Alan Greenberg; Particularly because Alan had made significant, greatly valued, ongoing and I might say extraordinary input into the WG activities including managing to suggest some word changes between V3 and the Final v4 document whilst in Africa and under extremely poor connectivity limitations... I further trust that the hard work put in by this NARALO ALAC representative is not being either unappreciated or ignored by his region (or interpreted that way by others) as a result of that lists deliberations... Certainly we need to note that at this stage we have no similar issues regarding the Joint Statement coming in from the other RALO's whose WG reps I should make very clear also worked in a very hard in positive and committed manner to be broadly representative of their Regions views... The Chair of NARALO has called (I believe) for an Ad-Hoc regional committee to be formed to draft an opposing document... I also hope they will place specific points into the current comment collection and collation process, via the Wiki and I assume that the outcome of this regional committee will be very specific in listing where the NARALO's views are at variance or opposition to the Joint Statement. So that the intended inclusiveness may yet be achieved, however if the At-Large Community from all regions feel that this process would be better facilitated by the ALAC perhaps organizing a topic specific conference call then please let me know and we will do our best to organize it (or whatever alternate collaborative tool is thought more effective to enhance *broad Regional input* I our limited time)... Significant effort was I can assure you made to forward the diversity of views expressed in response to the earlier ALAC statement, but naturally individual alternatives are and should be encouraged to be forwarded into the Public consultation in this topic as well... We should also take the time here to reflect on the fact that this Joint Statement is not an 'end point' of some sort of negotiation, it is meant to be a proposal of a mutually agreeable alternate structure for the Boards consideration, that results in better input and equity for Users in GNSO policy development... Even if by chance this proposal was deemed accepted outright as the "perfect design" significant detail work will still need to follow and I for one would like to see that being done in a spirit of collegial or mutually beneficial ways with the other User Constituencies, that brings from the At-Large Internet User Community a 'best fit, best practice' global approach... Finally should the desire of the ALAC be to radically alter or revisit the ALAC Statement then of course as an AC we can make take longer and make our input outside of the extension time, but it has always been my intent to fit in with the timelines now set if at all possible... CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 8:19 AM To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss; Europe Discuss; LAC Discuss; Africa Discuss; Asia-Pacific Discuss Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested Dear All: As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO. As a part of that work, the working group was also engaged in negotiations with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies. The Joint Statement that resulted from those discussions was posted to the public comment forum today, and is accessible at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html. The Working Group also produced a draft statement for transmission to the Board of Directors by the ALAC in its role as an Advisory Committee. That document was subject to a community comment period, and the working group incorporated those comments received however, the working group took the decision that it would be better to wait to finalise the text until after the Joint Statement was finished, so that the At-Large community could take one final look at the two statements, make any comments, and if necessary those comments could then be dealt with in the ALAC¹s individual statement. The ALAC also discussed the progress on this issue at its meeting earlier this month. The Staff have been asked to post a version of the ALAC statement, as well as the Joint Statement, so that comments can be taken. It is envisaged that we will be able to take comments for a few days as the statement can be transmitted to the board following the end of the public comment period on the GNSO Improvements draft, which finishes on the 24th of April. You may access both the draft ALAC Statement, and the Joint Statement, from this URL. Please do use the comment button to provide any comments you care to make. https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statemen t_on_gnso_improvements -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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://atlarge.icann.org
On Apr 23, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
the RALO representatives in the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG
Cheryl, thank you for the detailed explanation. It helps. On the substance, I am big believer in tasking trusted people with responsibility and giving them the authority to make decisions as needed. In reaching compromises with many disparate groups, this is the only way. More consultation back with the ALS representatives would have been helpful though. We should never be surprised by outcomes. As a matter of procedure, you used the quoted words above, but the people on the WG were *ALAC* representatives, not necessarily RALO representatives. While I have the greatest respect for Alan and Vanda, they are both NomComm appointees to the ALAC. Alan is from North America, but he is not the designated representative of any North American ALS. Personally, I take great comfort in the fact that Alan was on the committee. Given his liaison work, he's the *one* person I would have wanted on the committee. But the fact that the NARALO was not on the committee perhaps explains some of the disconnect we are now experiencing. As ever, it comes down to communication. -- Bret
Thanks for this Brett... Just one point in reply... The ALAC is very careful *not* to see regional representation (be it via the NomCom or a form of RALO election or appointment) as different in any way as to the value they bring to our work and discussions... As Chair of ALAC I can only trust and believe that the RALOS's are also making the very best of all the appointees their region have into the ALAC... And unfortunately due to no fault or deliberate intent I am keen to assure you, NARALO quite frequently Alan has been the only one from you region willing and/or able to (or in some cases attending) the meetings where discussions are going on... PLEASE note this is not any implied criticism of anyone or region as *no* Region has a perfect attendance or involvement record for the current ALAC's meetings and activities... But the use of the Wiki and follow up WG and committee activities etc., is always a standard method where regions can ensure they are being properly represented or at least I hope are able to brief whom ever has volunteered... I do regret that what you have quite reasonably described as the "disconnect" on this topic for NARALO has occurred, and I hope the damage is not either serious or an any way irreparable... And from this 'experience' might I suggest that perhaps it is indeed a good time that each of our RALO's have a look at how they allocate responsibilities and support the work of their 'trusted people' as well as give them the required authority to work in the ALAC volunteer model and to continue to evolve and work to the best of our capacity and perhaps to soon meet some of what I see as its potential... CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:25 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested On Apr 23, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
the RALO representatives in the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG
Cheryl, thank you for the detailed explanation. It helps. On the substance, I am big believer in tasking trusted people with responsibility and giving them the authority to make decisions as needed. In reaching compromises with many disparate groups, this is the only way. More consultation back with the ALS representatives would have been helpful though. We should never be surprised by outcomes. As a matter of procedure, you used the quoted words above, but the people on the WG were *ALAC* representatives, not necessarily RALO representatives. While I have the greatest respect for Alan and Vanda, they are both NomComm appointees to the ALAC. Alan is from North America, but he is not the designated representative of any North American ALS. Personally, I take great comfort in the fact that Alan was on the committee. Given his liaison work, he's the *one* person I would have wanted on the committee. But the fact that the NARALO was not on the committee perhaps explains some of the disconnect we are now experiencing. As ever, it comes down to communication. -- Bret
Dear Friends, we have two problems : - to make Staff understand that for france@large, an on-line oriented association, a money is only an hassle for the Treasurer :-) - to make French people understand what ICANN is really about and to give their @large's point of view. To address the second point we have added a wiki on ICANN issues on our http://francealarge.org site. I would thank all the francophones and all those who can help us making this wiki a nice and friendly place to learn in English, French and possibly many others language about ICANN topics, in an @large vision. We look for specialised synthesis able to be understood by laymen and women. We also look for ties to be built among French and foriegn @larges that could result in friendly f2f discussions in Paris. Thank you ! jfc http://franceatlarge.org PS. france@large was created in 2000. It already is an "old" ALS :-) Time flows.
[ massive cross-postings stripped out ] Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
I do not think it appropriate that I comment on discussions that then ran on the NARALO list per se (as I believe the autonomy of RALO debate is essential) Cheryl, as you know you were explicitly Cc'd on those discussions. The intent was specifically to attract your input.
but I would like to make clear my extreme personal disappointment that the NARALO (or at least some members thereof) feel that they were not being adequately included or represented Is your regret that we were not being adequately informed, or just that we feel that way?
in the development phase (pre release before the for comment period) of the Joint Statement by their representative on the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG Alan Greenberg;
This is inaccurate. Alan, for all the admirable work he has done in this effort, is NOT our representative. He was never elected by NARALO to ALAC, and as a NomComm appointee bears _zero_ accountability to us. He is from this region but not responsible to it. Thus, to refer to Alan as a "NARALO representative" of any kind is misleading.
I further trust that the hard work put in by this NARALO ALAC representative is not being either unappreciated or ignored by his region (or interpreted that way by others) as a result of that lists deliberations... It is not a statement of disrespect or unappreciation for his effort to be disappointed with the end result. I am extremely hesitant to personalize this issue, since the contents of the document are what is to be presented to the Board with the approval of all of ALAC. It is particularly distressing to see ALSs and RALOs mentioned in the document without their would-be roles discussed with them in advance of the final document.
Certainly we need to note that at this stage we have no similar issues regarding the Joint Statement coming in from the other RALO's whose WG reps I should make very clear also worked in a very hard in positive and committed manner to be broadly representative of their Regions views... As I said, I am aware that discussions of this nature are always difficult. It is especially distressing, given the amount of work put in, that the results are so unsatisfactory and not at all representative of our region's views.
The Chair of NARALO has called (I believe) for an Ad-Hoc regional committee to be formed to draft an opposing document...
This belief is mistaken. I have not called for a special committee to draft a full opposing document-- we don't have time for that. All our ALS and individual members are being asked to give comment to multiple response statements that have been put forward, all of which seek to disassociate NARALO from the Joint Statement. The intent is to reach a NARALO-wide consensus response before the comment period deadline.
I also hope they will place specific points into the current comment collection and collation process, via the Wiki and I assume that the outcome of this regional committee will be very specific in listing where the NARALO's views are at variance or opposition to the Joint Statement.
We will do what we can, given the extremely severe time restraints imposed on us by the authors and the deadline. So far the mailing list and Skype chat have served us well and will have to suffice. If ALAC representatives in this process had wanted a broader, more deliberate and detailed response, giving us more than three days to do it would have been a Really Good Idea.
We should also take the time here to reflect There is a deadline approaching that requires action; time to reflect is a luxury that has not been afforded us. In any case, I take issue that the alternative is "mutually agreeable" because, from our perspective, it clearly is not based on input from multiple NARALO members. Reaction has ranged from outrage to ridicule. Indeed, ALAC's very capacity to act as advocate for the At-Large community has been repeatedly called into question as a result of this process.
- Evan
Some brief comments / observation are interspaced below... -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:18 PM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested [ massive cross-postings stripped out ] Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
I do not think it appropriate that I comment on discussions that then ran on the NARALO list per se (as I believe the autonomy of RALO debate is essential) Cheryl, as you know you were explicitly Cc'd on those discussions. The intent was specifically to attract your input. <CLO> Attention got most certainly but my input needed to occur to the Public list when the documents discussed were available for all to read in a final format... And I maintain that it is inappropriate for me to comment on a NARALO issue of dissent from a document draft prepared but not distributed.
but I would like to make clear my extreme personal disappointment that the NARALO (or at least some members thereof) feel that they were not being adequately included or represented Is your regret that we were not being adequately informed, or just that we feel that way?
in the development phase (pre release before the for comment period) of the Joint Statement by their representative on the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG Alan Greenberg;
This is inaccurate. Alan, for all the admirable work he has done in this effort, is NOT our representative. He was never elected by NARALO to ALAC, and as a NomComm appointee bears _zero_ accountability to us. He is from this region but not responsible to it. Thus, to refer to Alan as a "NARALO representative" of any kind is misleading. <CLO> Thank you for this clarification and information we will note this now in all future ALAC work and look forward to effective representation from those that you have duly authorized and support in the future.
I further trust that the hard work put in by this NARALO ALAC representative is not being either unappreciated or ignored by his region (or interpreted that way by others) as a result of that lists deliberations... It is not a statement of disrespect or unappreciation for his effort to be disappointed with the end result. I am extremely hesitant to personalize this issue, since the contents of the document are what is to be presented to the Board with the approval of all of ALAC. It is particularly distressing to see ALSs and RALOs mentioned in the document without their would-be roles discussed with them in advance of the final document.
<CLO> RALO's and ALS's were specifically mentioned in the document as a clear mechanism to show what had been expressed in comments to the ALAC statement and in many other for a and discussions as the need to User voice being included... I assume it is not the NARALO desire to not see ALS's or organisations and individuals able to have direct input? We certainly assumed that they did desire inclusion.
Certainly we need to note that at this stage we have no similar issues regarding the Joint Statement coming in from the other RALO's whose WG reps I should make very clear also worked in a very hard in positive and committed manner to be broadly representative of their Regions views... As I said, I am aware that discussions of this nature are always difficult. It is especially distressing, given the amount of work put in, that the results are so unsatisfactory and not at all representative of our region's views.
<CLO> noted and the mechanism for the NARALO specific views has been outlined elsewhere, and you have specified your plans below...
The Chair of NARALO has called (I believe) for an Ad-Hoc regional committee to be formed to draft an opposing document...
This belief is mistaken. I have not called for a special committee to draft a full opposing document-- we don't have time for that. All our ALS and individual members are being asked to give comment to multiple response statements that have been put forward, all of which seek to disassociate NARALO from the Joint Statement. The intent is to reach a NARALO-wide consensus response before the comment period deadline.
I also hope they will place specific points into the current comment collection and collation process, via the Wiki and I assume that the outcome of this regional committee will be very specific in listing where the NARALO's views are at variance or opposition to the Joint Statement.
We will do what we can, given the extremely severe time restraints imposed on us by the authors and the deadline. So far the mailing list and Skype chat have served us well and will have to suffice. If ALAC representatives in this process had wanted a broader, more deliberate and detailed response, giving us more than three days to do it would have been a Really Good Idea.
We should also take the time here to reflect There is a deadline approaching that requires action; time to reflect is a luxury that has not been afforded us. In any case, I take issue that the alternative is "mutually agreeable" because, from our perspective, it clearly is not based on input from multiple NARALO members. Reaction has ranged from outrage to ridicule. Indeed, ALAC's very capacity to act as advocate for the At-Large community has been repeatedly called into question as a result of this process.
<CLO> please note that as with all public comment on ICANN policy interested individuals, ALS's, and RALO's per se, are encouraged to put in individual comment/ responses... These documents are notates as ALAC ones, and we will do our best to be reflective of the widest possible input we receive but they do not in any way limit NARALO or and other 'entity' within or outside of what we class as At-Large responding under separate cover... - CLO... Please note here in Australia we are about to begin a national public holiday which has in fact created a 3 day weekend any delay in future response from me in the next few day will be related to that... However I believe the NARALO point of view has been well established and continuing in an adversarial manner is unlikely to bring any resolution or benefit to either of us... - 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://atlarge.icann.org
Hello Cheryl, [ Note: until consensus has been achieved on a response I am speaking personally ]
RALO's and ALS's were specifically mentioned in the document as a clear mechanism to show what had been expressed in comments to the ALAC statement and in many other for a and discussions as the need to User voice being included... I assume it is not the NARALO desire to not see ALS's or organisations and individuals able to have direct input? We certainly assumed that they did desire inclusion.
Engaging in actual consultation eliminates the need to make assumptions. There is already a method for inclusion of RALO and ALS input into ICANN-wide policy making. It's called the At-Large Advisory Committee. The development of ALAC has been slow, expensive and sometimes painful -- but it is starting to produce results, get its voice, and finally justify its reason for being. At this time I have no interest in re-inventing -- along with similar speed, expense and pain -- a new, parallel process to bring ALS input into GNSO. It is in our mutual interest as members of At-Large to strengthen the respect, policy skills and communications focus of ALAC, not to weaken it. The GNSO does not propose individual universities, IP lawyers, or registrars being represented -- why ALSs? If ALAC has no business having representation on GNSO, then it really has no business existing at all. The irony of a document backed by ALAC that explicitly recommends its own disenfranchisement is, to me, astounding.
please note that as with all public comment on ICANN policy interested individuals, ALS's, and RALO's per se, are encouraged to put in individual comment/ responses... We appear to have no choice.
Or -- do we still have the ability to request that ALAC re-consider its support for the document?
These documents are notates as ALAC ones, and we will do our best to be reflective of the widest possible input we receive but they do not in any way limit NARALO or and other 'entity' within or outside of what we class as At-Large responding under separate cover...
My vast preference would be for ALAC to take a more enlightened and representative approach to the document, rather than for NARALO to oppose it.
I believe the NARALO point of view has been well established and continuing in an adversarial manner is unlikely to bring any resolution or benefit to either of us...
Agreed. I would be delighted to have NARALO representatives work with ALAC to help achieve a position that is more in line with what we believe to be the community interest. An adversarial position is only a last resort, brought on by lack of consultation and needlessly tight deadlines. If other options exist I (and I believe other NARALO members who oppose the document) would be more than happy to co-operate and collaborate. - Evan
At 24/04/2008 05:39 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
<snip> The GNSO does not propose individual universities, IP lawyers, or registrars being represented -- why ALSs? If ALAC has no business having representation on GNSO, then it really has no business existing at all. The irony of a document backed by ALAC that explicitly recommends its own disenfranchisement is, to me, astounding. <snip>
I am in Africa with only sporadic connectivity, very limited bandwidth and even less time. As such I have only read a fraction of this thread. I have thoughts on a number of issues, but for the moment, will confine myself to comments on the above thought. The terms "At-Large" and "ALAC" are typically used interchangeably by much of ICANN. The original document from the Business Constituency did in fact reference "ALAC". I am afraid that I am the devil that caused it to change to "At-Large". My reasoning was that the ALAC is a properly constituted Board Advisory Committee within ICANN. Perhaps the lawyers and organization-gurus among us would have no problem with an Advisory body within ICANN being represented on a Supporting Organization Council. But I did. I thought that this simply confused the relationships between the various bodies. So I suggested that references to ALAC be changed to At-Large. Now since At-Large can formally speak and act solely through the RALOs and the ALAC, Presumably these bodies or their designates will play a significant role in selecting who is representing At-Large as members of an "At-Large Constituency" within the User stakeholder group (and thus affecting who sits on the GNSO council for that stakeholder group. My intention was not to disenfranchise ALAC or At-Large, but rather to reserve for them the ability to influence the GNSO through representatives, but at the same time to NOT muddy the already complex ICANN organization chart. Alan
IMHO, it is a wise choice to keep the ALAC, as advisory committee, and some sort of At Large representation in the GNSO separated. I am one of those who, like Alan, fears problems if the same organization, ALAC, is represented twice in the chart, as Advisory Committee to the Board, and as GNSO Constituency. At the very least it will open a can of worms suggesting to other constituencies to establish an Advisory Committee and vice-versa. And at the very worse start a debate on whether ALAC should lose its status as Advisory Committee to the Board. Much better to talk about an at-large community, without excluding the fact that other "at-large" participants could join in for what is related to GNSO policy making, without necessarily be an ALS or involved in ALAC. And vice-versa. This can also bring to the question on whether, for instance, consumer protection agencies should not form a constituency of the GNSO in the non-contractual, non-commercial stakeholder group. Just an example. Regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, 24 April 2008 12:05 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
At 24/04/2008 05:39 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
<snip> The GNSO does not propose individual universities, IP lawyers, or registrars being represented -- why ALSs? If ALAC has no business having representation on GNSO, then it really has no business existing at all. The irony of a document backed by ALAC that explicitly recommends its own disenfranchisement is, to me, astounding. <snip>
I am in Africa with only sporadic connectivity, very limited bandwidth and even less time. As such I have only read a fraction of this thread.
I have thoughts on a number of issues, but for the moment, will confine myself to comments on the above thought.
The terms "At-Large" and "ALAC" are typically used interchangeably by much of ICANN. The original document from the Business Constituency did in fact reference "ALAC". I am afraid that I am the devil that caused it to change to "At-Large".
My reasoning was that the ALAC is a properly constituted Board Advisory Committee within ICANN. Perhaps the lawyers and organization-gurus among us would have no problem with an Advisory body within ICANN being represented on a Supporting Organization Council. But I did. I thought that this simply confused the relationships between the various bodies. So I suggested that references to ALAC be changed to At-Large. Now since At-Large can formally speak and act solely through the RALOs and the ALAC, Presumably these bodies or their designates will play a significant role in selecting who is representing At-Large as members of an "At-Large Constituency" within the User stakeholder group (and thus affecting who sits on the GNSO council for that stakeholder group.
My intention was not to disenfranchise ALAC or At-Large, but rather to reserve for them the ability to influence the GNSO through representatives, but at the same time to NOT muddy the already complex ICANN organization chart.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
At-Large Staff ha scritto:
Dear All:
As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO.
As a part of that work, the working group was also engaged in negotiations with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies.
The Joint Statement that resulted from those discussions was posted to the public comment forum today, and is accessible at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html.
I wish I could make full comments to what I just read in this statement, but I am still a member of the GNSO Review WG and, in that role, I feel bound to recognize whatever consensus will emerge from the community and not to try to influence it too much. At the same time, there is one thing that I really can't refrain from saying: the political rationale for: - supporting an increased weight for the commercial user constituencies, that are the less diverse constituencies in ICANN, are focused on a narrow set of commercial interests from a handful of developed countries, and have been constantly opposing user interests on a number of matters; - supporting a reduced weight for the registry and registrar constituencies, that have been sympathetic with user interests on similar matters; - supporting the elimination of Nomcom appointees, that include the present Chair and that have traditionally been a strong factor in favour of breaking deadlocks and promoting the global public interest; - notwithstanding the disclaimer in the document, promoting the concept that the ALAC represents just another interest group of the GNSO and so it should perhaps, sooner or later, be demoted from the Board AC level to the SO constituency level; all of this just to get a couple of weightless voting positions in the GNSO council to be appointed by the ALAC, really escapes me. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
At-Large Staff -
Bret Fausett -
carlos aguirre -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
JFC Morfin -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vittorio Bertola