DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large Director Appointment Process
Dear All, The ALAC Executive Committee wants to get community feedback from throughout the At-Large community on the current thinking which various community members have come up with on how to appoint a voting ICANN Board Director. You may find the current information and thinking at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_director_appointment_ process. We have created a Doodle page for you to indicate the preferred time and date you would like. If you need to participate in a language other than english, please put the language you need next to your name. http://www.doodle.com/krhkixt9srx9czp3 This Doodle poll closes Tuesday 29 September at 1200 UTC. BACKGROUND: As you know, In its meeting of 27th August 2009, the ICANN Board of Directors unanimously resolved as follows: 'IT IS RESOLVED THAT the recommendation of the BRWG (Board Review Working Group) to add one voting director appointed from the At-Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors, and removing the present ALAC Liaison to the Board, is approved in principle for implementation. Staff is directed to identify all steps required to achieve the implementation of this principle, after issuing of the BRWG Final Report.' The proposal that one or more voting Director seats on the ICANN Board should be selected by the At-Large community is a recommendation of the recently-completed At-Large Independent Review process. The other recommendations in the Final Report of the Board's At-Large Review Working Group were approved by the Board during their meeting at the Sydney ICANN meeting in June. As referenced in the final part of the resolution, the next step in the implementation of the resolution will be the presentation at the Seoul meeting of the full report of the BRWG (Board Review Working Group), as this element of change of the Board is a part of the broader Board review process. In the meantime, the At-Large community's ALAC has resolved upon drawing up a process to submit to the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board at the Seoul ICANN Meeting. This section is for development of ideas and a draft process to that end. Thank you, Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
On 09/23/2009 04:02 PM, At-Large Staff wrote:
Dear All,
The ALAC Executive Committee wants to get community feedback from throughout the At-Large community on the current thinking which various community members have come up with on how to appoint a voting ICANN Board Director. You may find the current information and thinking at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_director_appointment_ process.
I am concerned that the initial comments suggest a tendency for the ALAC to select ALAC - insider selects insider - which is not at all what was on my mind when I was arguing for "publicly chosen directors" on the review Working Group. I would look sadly upon a process that was pre-loaded in favor of ALAC insiders and did not have as its dominant features a candidacy process and a selection process that was open to any and all internet users. --karl--
Karl Auerbach wrote:
I am concerned that the initial comments suggest a tendency for the ALAC to select ALAC - insider selects insider - which is not at all what was on my mind when I was arguing for "publicly chosen directors" on the review Working Group.
When it was time to actually start thinking about how to do this -- at least in the sessions I have attended -- there was explicit concern about keeping this from being an insiders' club. Experience with At-Large would certainly work in someone's favour in understanding the issues and viewpoints put forward, and we can't eliminate the track records of candidates with a demonstrated ability to "get" At-Large. Still, it's clear that familiarity can not be the only criteria or even a dominant one. I'm actually surprised that you would say what you did, having looked at the ideas that have started to be put forward such as https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?draft_procedure_for_appointmen... I think that this first attempt hardly puts most of the decision-making in ALAC's hands. Having said that, let's not forget that two-thirds of ALAC are themselves selected as leaders by the grassroots, so they shouldn't be completely out of the process completely. Now... if you believe that the one-third NomComm component on ALAC provides a stability and continuity, that the grassroots itself cannot be trusted to run the whole show... then you want to maximize the role of ALAC. If you believe that the grassroots is perfectly capable of doing it themselves, then you want little or no role for ALAC and more in the hands of the ALSs and individual RALO members. That choice, ultimately, may be the toughest one of this process. - Evan
On 09/23/2009 08:08 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
...If you believe that the grassroots is perfectly capable of doing it themselves, then you want little or no role for ALAC and more in the hands of the ALSs and individual RALO members.
When I say "community of internet users" I do not mean things like ALS or RALO. Membership in some ICANN approved organization ought not to be a pre-condition to the ability to run-for, vote for, or occupy a seat on the ICANN board of directors or any other ICANN body. --karl--
Karl Auerbach wrote:
When I say "community of internet users" I do not mean things like ALS or RALO.
Well, I do. What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure. except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN? So let me get this straight. You're saying that ICANN went to the whole effort to create this multi-level structure, to provide bi-directional information flow between itself and the public, that has taken multiple years to mature -- only to bypass all of it when picking a "public board rep"?
Membership in some ICANN approved organization ought not to be a pre-condition to the ability to run-for, vote for, or occupy a seat on the ICANN board of directors or any other ICANN body.
Sorry, can't agree. I'm with you that the candidates do not have to come from the ALS/RALO/ALAC community. But I have no problems in using this existing elaborate network for selecting the individual, as opposed to creating some brand new system to determine eligible voters. The last thing that "ICANN AT-Large" needs is more infrastructure. - Evan
I am with Evan in every single word here. Regards Andres Piazza Lacralo chair Sent from BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:29:59 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large Director Appointment Process Karl Auerbach wrote:
When I say "community of internet users" I do not mean things like ALS or RALO.
Well, I do. What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure. except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN? So let me get this straight. You're saying that ICANN went to the whole effort to create this multi-level structure, to provide bi-directional information flow between itself and the public, that has taken multiple years to mature -- only to bypass all of it when picking a "public board rep"?
Membership in some ICANN approved organization ought not to be a pre-condition to the ability to run-for, vote for, or occupy a seat on the ICANN board of directors or any other ICANN body.
Sorry, can't agree. I'm with you that the candidates do not have to come from the ALS/RALO/ALAC community. But I have no problems in using this existing elaborate network for selecting the individual, as opposed to creating some brand new system to determine eligible voters. The last thing that "ICANN AT-Large" needs is more infrastructure. - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Re: What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN? Totally wrong. The ALAC/RALO mess was created solely as a sop upon the elimination of all At-Large directors from the Board following the Accra decisions. The ICANN spinmeisters tried to convince the civil Society crowd that even after their heinous action there was still some kind of value in "participation without representation". The smarter groups, like CDT, walked away from the process rather than countenancing this type of abuse; we were left with only the more feeble-minded orgs to build the byzantine mess that now pretends to be the at-large community.
At 14:14 24/09/2009, Danny Younger wrote:
Re: What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN?
Totally wrong. The ALAC/RALO mess was created solely as a sop upon the elimination of all At-Large directors from the Board following the Accra decisions. The ICANN spinmeisters tried to convince the civil Society crowd that even after their heinous action there was still some kind of value in "participation without representation".
The smarter groups, like CDT, walked away from the process rather than countenancing this type of abuse; we were left with only the more feeble-minded orgs to build the byzantine mess that now pretends to be the at-large community.
I see that you still are in a brave good mood! Great! Let see where we are on 10/1. As you know I read "@large" as internet lingo for "internet lead users". Letf-overs are "blabl@large". As you say they are the more loyal building blocks of the ICANN's make believe scheme. This is their life .. and travel. At least they do not embarass those who wreally cary the mo jfc
Well, then, Danny - why do you continue to discuss matters with such "feeble minded orgs"? Why would you bother? To try to look smarter than everybody else in the entire world? I hate to tell you what statements like that do to your already shaky credibility. Darlene In her own right and not representing ANYBODY ELSE in the entire universe. Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:15 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process Re: What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN? Totally wrong. The ALAC/RALO mess was created solely as a sop upon the elimination of all At-Large directors from the Board following the Accra decisions. The ICANN spinmeisters tried to convince the civil Society crowd that even after their heinous action there was still some kind of value in "participation without representation". The smarter groups, like CDT, walked away from the process rather than countenancing this type of abuse; we were left with only the more feeble-minded orgs to build the byzantine mess that now pretends to be the at-large community. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i cann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Well, Darlene, that comment was on your own... but happened to represent my vision on Danny right now.. Andrés Piazza
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:23:50 -0400 From: DThompson@GOV.NU.CA To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process
Well, then, Danny - why do you continue to discuss matters with such "feeble minded orgs"? Why would you bother? To try to look smarter than everybody else in the entire world? I hate to tell you what statements like that do to your already shaky credibility.
Darlene
In her own right and not representing ANYBODY ELSE in the entire universe.
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:15 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process
Re: What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN?
Totally wrong. The ALAC/RALO mess was created solely as a sop upon the elimination of all At-Large directors from the Board following the Accra decisions. The ICANN spinmeisters tried to convince the civil Society crowd that even after their heinous action there was still some kind of value in "participation without representation".
The smarter groups, like CDT, walked away from the process rather than countenancing this type of abuse; we were left with only the more feeble-minded orgs to build the byzantine mess that now pretends to be the at-large community.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i cann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________
Darlene, Until the GNSO is reorganized some of us have no choice but to continue working with a broken tool. --- On Thu, 9/24/09, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
From: Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 10:23 AM Well, then, Danny - why do you continue to discuss matters with such "feeble minded orgs"? Why would you bother? To try to look smarter than everybody else in the entire world? I hate to tell you what statements like that do to your already shaky credibility.
Darlene
In her own right and not representing ANYBODY ELSE in the entire universe.
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:15 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process
Re: What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN?
Totally wrong. The ALAC/RALO mess was created solely as a sop upon the elimination of all At-Large directors from the Board following the Accra decisions. The ICANN spinmeisters tried to convince the civil Society crowd that even after their heinous action there was still some kind of value in "participation without representation".
The smarter groups, like CDT, walked away from the process rather than countenancing this type of abuse; we were left with only the more feeble-minded orgs to build the byzantine mess that now pretends to be the at-large community.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i cann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Danny, Well, this "broken tool" would prefer to be kept out of it. Frankly, if you are not an adult enough to keep name calling out of it then I would rather not hear from you or have to take this (perhaps you should become more active with the NCUC where this seems to be par for the course). If you think that I am so useless, then keep it to yourself. Also, you are always saying that we spend hours and hours on everything BUT policy. At yet when you offered Evan help to do some policy, you threw it right back in his face. Until I see some actually policy work coming out of you, Danny, and not just whining and belly-aching about what happens, then I will just be deleting your e-mails. You, as an individual in our RALO, have just as much right as any ALS to put forward policy briefs. Darlene Speaking for nobody else in the universe. Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:03 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-LargeDirectorAppointment Process Darlene, Until the GNSO is reorganized some of us have no choice but to continue working with a broken tool. --- On Thu, 9/24/09, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
From: Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 10:23 AM Well, then, Danny - why do you continue to discuss matters with such "feeble minded orgs"? Why would you bother? To try to look smarter than everybody else in the entire world? I hate to tell you what statements like that do to your already shaky credibility.
Darlene
In her own right and not representing ANYBODY ELSE in the entire universe.
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:15 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process
Re: What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN?
Totally wrong. The ALAC/RALO mess was created solely as a sop upon the elimination of all At-Large directors from the Board following the Accra decisions. The ICANN spinmeisters tried to convince the civil Society crowd that even after their heinous action there was still some kind of value in "participation without representation".
The smarter groups, like CDT, walked away from the process rather than countenancing this type of abuse; we were left with only the more feeble-minded orgs to build the byzantine mess that now pretends to be the at-large community.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i cann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Darlene, Useless is just to spend time answering this nonsense. This guy's goal seems to be making some noise and showing how "smart" he is. An individual that has no ability to work with anyone but his ego, is absolutely opposed to a community. Specially to at large. Sent from BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:27:45 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-LargeDirectorAppointment Process Danny, Well, this "broken tool" would prefer to be kept out of it. Frankly, if you are not an adult enough to keep name calling out of it then I would rather not hear from you or have to take this (perhaps you should become more active with the NCUC where this seems to be par for the course). If you think that I am so useless, then keep it to yourself. Also, you are always saying that we spend hours and hours on everything BUT policy. At yet when you offered Evan help to do some policy, you threw it right back in his face. Until I see some actually policy work coming out of you, Danny, and not just whining and belly-aching about what happens, then I will just be deleting your e-mails. You, as an individual in our RALO, have just as much right as any ALS to put forward policy briefs. Darlene Speaking for nobody else in the universe. Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:03 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-LargeDirectorAppointment Process Darlene, Until the GNSO is reorganized some of us have no choice but to continue working with a broken tool. --- On Thu, 9/24/09, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
From: Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 10:23 AM Well, then, Danny - why do you continue to discuss matters with such "feeble minded orgs"? Why would you bother? To try to look smarter than everybody else in the entire world? I hate to tell you what statements like that do to your already shaky credibility.
Darlene
In her own right and not representing ANYBODY ELSE in the entire universe.
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:15 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process
Re: What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN?
Totally wrong. The ALAC/RALO mess was created solely as a sop upon the elimination of all At-Large directors from the Board following the Accra decisions. The ICANN spinmeisters tried to convince the civil Society crowd that even after their heinous action there was still some kind of value in "participation without representation".
The smarter groups, like CDT, walked away from the process rather than countenancing this type of abuse; we were left with only the more feeble-minded orgs to build the byzantine mess that now pretends to be the at-large community.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i cann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Darlene, Thank you for this delightful exchange. It serves as a poignant reminder that those orgs that lacked the gumption to fight for their own representation still have nothing better to do than engaging in a pointless defence of a broken model that rarely serves the user interest. --- On Thu, 9/24/09, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
From: Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-LargeDirectorAppointment Process To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 11:27 AM Danny,
Well, this "broken tool" would prefer to be kept out of it. Frankly, if you are not an adult enough to keep name calling out of it then I would rather not hear from you or have to take this (perhaps you should become more active with the NCUC where this seems to be par for the course). If you think that I am so useless, then keep it to yourself. Also, you are always saying that we spend hours and hours on everything BUT policy. At yet when you offered Evan help to do some policy, you threw it right back in his face. Until I see some actually policy work coming out of you, Danny, and not just whining and belly-aching about what happens, then I will just be deleting your e-mails. You, as an individual in our RALO, have just as much right as any ALS to put forward policy briefs.
Darlene
Speaking for nobody else in the universe.
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:03 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-LargeDirectorAppointment Process
Darlene,
Until the GNSO is reorganized some of us have no choice but to continue working with a broken tool.
--- On Thu, 9/24/09, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
From: Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 10:23 AM Well, then, Danny - why do you continue to discuss matters with such "feeble minded orgs"? Why would you bother? To try to look smarter than everybody else in the entire world? I hate to tell you what statements like that do to your already shaky credibility.
Darlene
In her own right and not representing ANYBODY ELSE in the entire universe.
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:15 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large DirectorAppointment Process
Re: What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN?
Totally wrong. The ALAC/RALO mess was created solely as a sop upon the elimination of all At-Large directors from the Board following the Accra decisions. The ICANN spinmeisters tried to convince the civil Society crowd that even after their heinous action there was still some kind of value in "participation without representation".
The smarter groups, like CDT, walked away from the process rather than countenancing this type of abuse; we were left with only the more feeble-minded orgs to build the byzantine mess that now pretends to be the at-large community.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i cann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 09/24/2009 01:29 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
What other reason is there for the existence of the RALO/ALS infrastructure. except to nurture a community of Internet users that has enough sufficient interest to know about ICANN?
I do not believe that one should have to join the company union in order to vote for the directors. "Nurture" is an interesting word - it suggests paternalism and a channeling of those being nurtured so that they behave and think in ways pleasing and acceptable to the one giving nurture.
So let me get this straight. You're saying that ICANN went to the whole effort to create this multi-level structure, to provide bi-directional information flow between itself and the public, that has taken multiple years to mature -- only to bypass all of it when picking a "public board rep"?
ICANN went through the trouble to create the incredible Byzantine structures of the ALAC, its children, and the ombudsman in order to have a cover story when it erased the open and operating system of public "selections" (really elections) for board seats. I know this very well - I occupied one of the five publicly selected board seats that was erased in order to make way for the ALAC and its zero board seats. I got a front row, insider, privileged view of of the septic conception.
Membership in some ICANN approved organization ought not to be a pre-condition to the ability to run-for, vote for, or occupy a seat on the ICANN board of directors or any other ICANN body.
Sorry, can't agree. I'm with you that the candidates do not have to come from the ALS/RALO/ALAC community. But I have no problems in using this existing elaborate network for selecting the individual, as opposed to creating some brand new system to determine eligible voters. The last thing that "ICANN AT-Large" needs is more infrastructure.
I agree that ICANN does not need more infrastructure of its own - which, by-the-way, is in itself a strong argument for the entire ALAC system to be detached from ICANN (and ICANN's funding.) But that is not to say that the public ought to be denied the ability to form, and re-form, its own aggregations as people see fit. I would work against any system that required a candidate seeking position on ICANN's board to obtain approval from any ALAC/RALO/ALS as a condition of having his/her name on the ballot. Nor should the ALAC/RALO/ALS system have the ability to simply place names on the ballot in any way that is less difficult than that faced by an independent candidate. --karl--
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote: I would work against any system that required a candidate seeking position
on ICANN's board to obtain approval from any ALAC/RALO/ALS as a condition of having his/her name on the ballot. Nor should the ALAC/RALO/ALS system have the ability to simply place names on the ballot in any way that is less difficult than that faced by an independent candidate.
+1 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Karl, while many of us still prefer the election model, the Board has only agreed to an appointment model. In an appointment model some group of people will make the final decision as to whom is ultimately annointed. At issue is the composition of the group that makes the selection and the process that they will invoke. I see that you are not keen on having the ALS/RALO/ALAC members make the selection. If broad-based elections are out of the equation, what group then, in your view, is most suited to be the appointing body?
On 09/24/2009 10:11 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
while many of us still prefer the election model, the Board has only agreed to an appointment model.
The word "appoint" as used in the resolution is not specific regarding the person or body that does the appointing nor does it specify the method through which the choice of who to appoint is made. An elective system fits within that the confines of an appointive process - the public uses an elective process to chose the person that "the public" appoints to the board. (I don't care whether "elective" means direct elections or indirect, as long as the latter has no more than one layer of intermediary.) I see great danger of "nominating committee" processes. What works for the IETF does not work at all in the highly politicized world of ICANN; we've seen how ICANN's board is so sheepishly passive that it has lost control of its "staff". I strongly believe in the "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" principle. ICANN is terrified of it and has spent a decade building barricades against the public will. One of those barricades is the aristocratic view that only those who participate in ICANN's forums are worthy enough to make informed and intelligent choices about ICANN. The ALAC system would possibly collapse were ICANN to withhold funding and "staff" assistance - it has not been able to create an independent system of support; it has never over the years of its existence been able to garner even a tiny percentage of the size and energy that were created for the public ICANN elections of year 2000. If it can not garner sufficient public support just to exist one has to ask whether it is right or proper to empower it to be the one and only channel for the expression of the public viewpoint. It would be odd if that dependent ALAC had more appointive power than a self-organized and self-funded group of internet users or a number of internet users who come together in their support of a person to articulate their point of view. People ought to take a look at the ICANN elections of year 2000. Here in the US/Canada there was a robust election among 7 qualified candidates, including luminaries such as Larry Lessig and Barbara Simons. Face-to-face debates were held in several locations across the continent. There was a vibrant electronic exchange of viewpoints by the candidates and by observers. ICANN did not contribute a penny into this process; rather it grew from the interest of the public in having its own voice on the ICANN board.
I see that you are not keen on having the ALS/RALO/ALAC members make the selection. If broad-based elections are out of the equation, what group then, in your view, is most suited to be the appointing body?
ICANN exists as a body that is required to serve the public interest. That, to my mind, means that the choice *must* be in the hands of the public and no other. And that choice must be made through mechanisms that do not require the intercession and blessing of any body that is part of the ICANN hierarchy. The only thing that ICANN should do is to provide a system to register the voters, process the election, and count the votes. --karl--
Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 09/24/2009 10:11 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
while many of us still prefer the election model, the Board has only agreed to an appointment model.
The word "appoint" as used in the resolution is not specific regarding the person or body that does the appointing nor does it specify the method through which the choice of who to appoint is made.
Having participated in the discussions in the Board Review WG, in the SIC, and finally in the Board, I would try to clarify a bit what the intended model is. When the Board used the word "appoint" it did use it in the broadest sense possible, not restrictively mean a top-down nomination, excluding an election. So, Karl seems to me to interpret the position of the Board quite well. The Board, in fact, does not recommend any specific methodology, any specific way to conduct elections (if the chosen methodology is elections), nor even the electorate. It invites the ALAC to come up with a proposal, that the Board then will approve. Cheers, Roberto
http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0909&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&P=2... Hope this can be sent to ALAC if there are any fair-minded people on both lists This post has generated quite a reaction, but it is worthwhile to note that all the negative ones emanate from ALAC and staff. I think the main issue here is that my post made open and explicit a problem that already existed and has been gaining momentum for months. When conflicts are aired, it is common to shoot the messenger: the person who identifies an internal conflict and makes it public is frequently accused of <em>causing </em>the conflict. This post, and the controversy around it, reflects a fact: ALAC and NCUC are fundamentally divided over the future of the NCSG. As Bill Drake's comment indicated, the problem of suspicion and accusation characterizes both sides. The tone of indignation in the ALAC responses is unjustified, because people within ALAC have been badmouthing NCUC around this issue for months, and a few policy staff have been aiding and abetting those divisions. Sorry if that isn't pretty, Kieren, but that's what's happening. Don't blame me for the underlying problems of ICANN politics. I will concede that the tone of the article is angry, perhaps inappropriately so. I will also concede that in a few minor matters that don't really affect the argument (e.g., whether Beau was elected or not) there are errors. Although it names names, I do not concede that this article is personal. It is about an important substantive issue affecting the GNSO. ALAC as a whole, and certainly Beau and Cheryl, are fully aware of the fact that NCUC -- and almost everyone in civil society -- has rejected the NCSG charter that the staff and the SIC imposed on us. They know that NCUC believes that a constituency-based structure is designed to divide and cripple us. Indeed, Cheryl and two ALAC members are the ONLY people who commented in favor of the constituency based charter. Cheryl even falsely portrayed her opinion as that of ALAC as a whole. Even a substantial portion of the Board now realizes that it was a mistake to impose the SIC charter onthe NCSG, and the Board as a whole has agreed to review it after a year. If that review is to be a real one, no new constituencies can be recognized and put into place before the charter issue is settled. Because the role of constituencies in the NCSG is precisely the issue that needs to be resolved. To insist on the Consumer constituency being recognized now is exactly the same as saying there should be no charter review. Cheryl and ALAC are in effect trying to pre-empt and bypass the continued negotations among NCUC, the Board and ALAC. And that is the same as saying, "we don't care what 150 civil society organizations think, their views should be excluded and ignored, as they were before." And that is far more insulting than anything in my blog post. <p> Adam Peake points out that ALAC voted in favor of a Consumer Constituency back in April. True. But that was before the battle over the nature of the charter was joined. That was before virtually every civil society organization and every individual in NCUC made clear in the public comment period that they wanted an integrated NCSG, not one fragmented into warring constituencies. That was before the NCUC letter to the Board asking for a moratorium on new constituencies until the charter was settled. <p> I apologize if my blog wasn't clear on this: What ALAC is doing now is not merely reiterating their support for a Consumer Constituency in a general sense. What they are doing is asking the Board to disregard the NCUC request to delay the formation of such a constituency until the charter issue is settled. <p> So Adam, based your worthwhile observation, here are a few questions for Cheryl, Beau, and any other person involved in this current vote. Have ALAC's leadership made any attempts to communicate directly with any officer of NCUC about this vote? Have they given NCUC members or officers an opportunity to present their case to the RALOs? It is clear that the nature of the NCUC letter was misrepresented to the ALAC and RALOs. The letter was described as proposing to delay the GNSO reforms, when that is not true. The letter was described as being "against" a Consumer constituency on principle when in fact NCUC is simply asking that any decision about it be deferred until the charter issue is settled. <p> What about other comments on the post? What do they contribute. Beau Brendler is notably vague about the level of support this consumer constituency has. He says, "The support for it came from other consumer organizations [what other organizations, Beau?] and people working together within the ALAC [i.e., this is really the ALAC constituency, isn't it?]. We have learned from Holly that she has the "imprimatur" of ACCAN, (the article already recognized the connection to ACCAN) but that doesn't change the fact that ACCAN did not formally express its support for such a constituency, and one organization does not a constituency make. To my ALAC critics: please explain to me why an entity with over 150 members, 5-6 of them consumer organizations, should have have of its votes taken away by a group of 3-4 ALAC people calling themselves representatives of "consumers." Then we have Evan Liebowitz, who is so outraged by my post that he acquires the special moral status to call me a bunch of names: "the gutter tone, the insinuations, the tinfoil-hat-level conspiracy theories...petty and desperate...sad...personally vindictive." No substantive contribution, there. So let's be adults and focus on the real issue: why is ALAC - which is not a representative of noncommercial users in the GNSO, both because it is notr part of the GNSO and seeing as how it includes a mix of commercial and noncommercial interests - attempting to prevent the 150+ entities in the NCUC from having a real say in the future charter of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group?
At 23:12 28/09/2009, Danny Younger wrote:
So let's be adults and focus on the real issue: why is ALAC - which is not a representative of noncommercial users in the GNSO, both because it is notr part of the GNSO and seeing as how it includes a mix of commercial and noncommercial interests - attempting to prevent the 150+ entities in the NCUC from having a real say in the future charter of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group?
Danny, This is a very good question posed by Milton! I guess the reason may be similar to the NCUC refusing to Intlnet (eldest nonprofit organizations of the International Network [incorporated in 1978]) to join his own constituency - with the active support of brother Danny; and ALAC refusing the accreditation of france@large (eldest ALS [incorporated in 2000, upon the proposal of Intlnet]). This is perhaps that the addicts there are only interested in their dependence on the "ICANNsino" and that they do not want real life people come and interfere with their expensive role-playing game? jfc
Karl Auerbach wrote:
I would work against any system that required a candidate seeking position on ICANN's board to obtain approval from any ALAC/RALO/ALS as a condition of having his/her name on the ballot. Nor should the ALAC/RALO/ALS system have the ability to simply place names on the ballot in any way that is less difficult than that faced by an independent candidate.
I would simply recall the actual Board resolution:
'IT IS RESOLVED THAT the recommendation of the BRWG (Board Review Working Group) to add one voting director appointed from the At-Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors, and removing the present ALAC Liaison to the Board, is approved in principle for implementation.[...]'
By my reading, this explicitly directs the ICANN-defined At-Large Community (not the general public) to fill the position; what's left now is for the components of this Community -- the ALAC, RALOs, ALSs and individual community members -- to define a selection process that best reflects their collective wishes. I'm quite comfortable with that, and have already started working on an At-Large selection process. You're welcome to work against the letter and the spirit of the resolution, and to yell a hearty "none of the above" to any good-faith responses we come up with. I have more productive uses of my time, though I'll be happy to enter the debate -- to oppose your opposition, so to speak -- if your POV is seriously considered by the Board or implementation staff. - Evan
On 09/24/2009 10:46 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I would simply recall the actual Board resolution:
'IT IS RESOLVED THAT the recommendation of the BRWG (Board Review Working Group) to add one voting director appointed from the At-Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors, and removing the present ALAC Liaison to the Board, is approved in principle for implementation.[...]'
Standard rules of interpretation when applied indicate that the resolution specifically excludes the ALAC as "The At-Large Community" to which resolution refers. ICANN's board knows how to spell "ALAC" or "At Large Advisory Committee" - and yet the board chose not to use those words when describing the appointive mechanism. And when the board did mean to specify the ALAC it did so by explicitly using the term "ALAC" in the clause that removed the "ALAC Liaison". Moreover, the resolution refers to the board review working group's recommendation - which, as a member of that working group, I helped to author - as providing the context for the phrase "At-Large Community". In that report we took care to express a very expansive view of who constitutes the community of internet users. --karl--
At 24/09/2009 02:32 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
Standard rules of interpretation when applied indicate that the resolution specifically excludes the ALAC as "The At-Large Community" to which resolution refers.
ICANN's board knows how to spell "ALAC" or "At Large Advisory Committee" - and yet the board chose not to use those words when describing the appointive mechanism. And when the board did mean to specify the ALAC it did so by explicitly using the term "ALAC" in the clause that removed the "ALAC Liaison".
Karl, the wording of the Board resolution and the first cut at a methodology to select/elect the Board member are entirely consistent. If you look at the description of the current Supporting Organization Board members (in Article VI.2.1 of the Bylaws), it says: b. Two voting members selected by the Address Supporting Organization according to the provisions of Article VIII of these Bylaws. These seats on the Board of Directors are referred to in these Bylaws as Seat 9 and Seat 10. c. Two voting members selected by the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization according to the provisions of Article IX of these Bylaws. These seats on the Board of Directors are referred to in these Bylaws as Seat 11 and Seat 12. d. Two voting members selected by the Generic Names Supporting Organization according to the provisions of Article X of these Bylaws. These seats on the Board of Directors are referred to in these Bylaws as Seat 13 and Seat 14. Note that in each case, it uses the term for the entire SO. For example, in the last example, it refers to "Members selected by the GNSO", the GNSO being the entire organization including the full Constituencies. However, in Articles VIII, IX and X, when it talks about the selection process in more detail, it says: 2. The Address Council shall select Directors to those seats on the Board designated to be filled by the ASO. 9. The ccNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 11 and 12 on the Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office. Notification of the ccNSO Council's selections shall be given by the ccNSO Council Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1). 6. The GNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the ICANN Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes comprising a majority of the votes of all the members of the GNSO Council. Notification of the GNSO Council's selections shall be given by the GNSO Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1). So in each case, it is not the global SO that picks the Board members, but the appropriate Council. To what extent each Councillor follows instructions of their Constituency (if any) is up to that Constituency. And yes, the Board can spell, not only "ALAC", but "At-Large Community" which is a term defined in the Bylaws Article XI.2.4.i (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI) to be the ALAC, RALOs and ALSs. Alan
ALAN SAID: "And yes, the Board can spell, not only "ALAC", but "At-Large Community" which is a term defined in the Bylaws Article XI.2.4.i (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI) to be the ALAC, RALOs and ALSs" And this is strictly like that. No doubt. Andrés Piazza LACRALO Chair
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:58:06 -0400 To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org From: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large Director Appointment Process
At 24/09/2009 02:32 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
Standard rules of interpretation when applied indicate that the resolution specifically excludes the ALAC as "The At-Large Community" to which resolution refers.
ICANN's board knows how to spell "ALAC" or "At Large Advisory Committee" - and yet the board chose not to use those words when describing the appointive mechanism. And when the board did mean to specify the ALAC it did so by explicitly using the term "ALAC" in the clause that removed the "ALAC Liaison".
Karl, the wording of the Board resolution and the first cut at a methodology to select/elect the Board member are entirely consistent.
If you look at the description of the current Supporting Organization Board members (in Article VI.2.1 of the Bylaws), it says:
b. Two voting members selected by the Address Supporting Organization according to the provisions of Article VIII of these Bylaws. These seats on the Board of Directors are referred to in these Bylaws as Seat 9 and Seat 10.
c. Two voting members selected by the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization according to the provisions of Article IX of these Bylaws. These seats on the Board of Directors are referred to in these Bylaws as Seat 11 and Seat 12.
d. Two voting members selected by the Generic Names Supporting Organization according to the provisions of Article X of these Bylaws. These seats on the Board of Directors are referred to in these Bylaws as Seat 13 and Seat 14.
Note that in each case, it uses the term for the entire SO. For example, in the last example, it refers to "Members selected by the GNSO", the GNSO being the entire organization including the full Constituencies.
However, in Articles VIII, IX and X, when it talks about the selection process in more detail, it says:
2. The Address Council shall select Directors to those seats on the Board designated to be filled by the ASO.
9. The ccNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 11 and 12 on the Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office. Notification of the ccNSO Council's selections shall be given by the ccNSO Council Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1).
6. The GNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the ICANN Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes comprising a majority of the votes of all the members of the GNSO Council. Notification of the GNSO Council's selections shall be given by the GNSO Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1).
So in each case, it is not the global SO that picks the Board members, but the appropriate Council. To what extent each Councillor follows instructions of their Constituency (if any) is up to that Constituency.
And yes, the Board can spell, not only "ALAC", but "At-Large Community" which is a term defined in the Bylaws Article XI.2.4.i (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI) to be the ALAC, RALOs and ALSs.
Alan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________
The Board long ago defined the At-Large community in the decision taken at Accra: "Whereas, the Board believes that the At Large community properly defined embraces the full range of Internet users, including not only individual users, but also academic institutions, small businesses, non-commercial entities of various kinds, including consumer groups, and various other non-governmental organizations, all of which have a legitimate interest in, and a need for workable mechanisms for informed participation in, the ICANN policymaking process;" The "full range of Internet users" is a lot bigger than the paltry few non-commercial organizations that populate the RALOs. You will also note that this board-level definition also complements the original definition of the at-large as set down by the Membership Advisory Committee, namely, "Q8: Who should be included in the at-large membership? MAC consensus: All individuals and organizations that are not represented by Supporting Organizations are eligible to become at-large members without regard to the nature of their interest as long as they have e-mail contact.." The emphasis has always been on individuals. Of course, now we hear the organizational voices of those that seek to exclude individuals from the process... --- On Thu, 9/24/09, Andres Piazza <andrespiazzagpj@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Andres Piazza <andrespiazzagpj@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large Director Appointment Process To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 5:12 PM
ALAN SAID: "And yes, the Board can spell, not only "ALAC", but "At-Large Community" which is a term defined in the Bylaws Article XI.2.4.i (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI) to be the ALAC, RALOs and ALSs" And this is strictly like that. No doubt.
Andrés Piazza LACRALO Chair
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:58:06 -0400 To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org From: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOODLE: At-Large Community Call / At-Large Director Appointment Process
At 24/09/2009 02:32 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
Standard rules of interpretation when applied indicate that the resolution specifically excludes the ALAC as "The At-Large Community" to which resolution refers.
ICANN's board knows how to spell "ALAC" or "At Large Advisory Committee" - and yet the board chose not to use those words when describing the appointive mechanism. And when the board did mean to specify the ALAC it did so by explicitly using the term "ALAC" in the clause that removed the "ALAC Liaison".
Karl, the wording of the Board resolution and the first cut at a methodology to select/elect the Board member are entirely consistent.
If you look at the description of the current Supporting Organization Board members (in Article VI.2.1 of the Bylaws), it says:
b. Two voting members selected by the Address Supporting Organization according to the provisions of Article VIII of these Bylaws. These seats on the Board of Directors are referred to in these Bylaws as Seat 9 and Seat 10.
c. Two voting members selected by the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization according to the provisions of Article IX of these Bylaws. These seats on the Board of Directors are referred to in these Bylaws as Seat 11 and Seat 12.
d. Two voting members selected by the Generic Names Supporting Organization according to the provisions of Article X of these Bylaws. These seats on the Board of Directors are referred to in these Bylaws as Seat 13 and Seat 14.
Note that in each case, it uses the term for the entire SO. For example, in the last example, it refers to "Members selected by the GNSO", the GNSO being the entire organization including the full Constituencies.
However, in Articles VIII, IX and X, when it talks about the selection process in more detail, it says:
2. The Address Council shall select Directors to those seats on the Board designated to be filled by the ASO.
9. The ccNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 11 and 12 on the Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office. Notification of the ccNSO Council's selections shall be given by the ccNSO Council Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1).
6. The GNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the ICANN Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes comprising a majority of the votes of all the members of the GNSO Council. Notification of the GNSO Council's selections shall be given by the GNSO Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1).
So in each case, it is not the global SO that picks the Board members, but the appropriate Council. To what extent each Councillor follows instructions of their Constituency (if any) is up to that Constituency.
And yes, the Board can spell, not only "ALAC", but "At-Large Community" which is a term defined in the Bylaws Article XI.2.4.i (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI) to be the ALAC, RALOs and ALSs.
Alan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
For those who want to read all 20 clauses of the resolution instead of the 1 below, it along with the accompanying debate can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-14mar02.htm. Alan At 24/09/2009 05:26 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
The Board long ago defined the At-Large community in the decision taken at Accra:
"Whereas, the Board believes that the At Large community properly defined embraces the full range of Internet users, including not only individual users, but also academic institutions, small businesses, non-commercial entities of various kinds, including consumer groups, and various other non-governmental organizations, all of which have a legitimate interest in, and a need for workable mechanisms for informed participation in, the ICANN policymaking process;"
At 24/09/2009 05:26 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
<text omitted> The emphasis has always been on individuals. Of course, now we hear the organizational voices of those that seek to exclude individuals from the process...
I'm not sure if I should be flattered or upset about having my voice described in that way. I voted in the 2000 election, my only At-Large affiliation (other than my being a NomCom appointee to the ALAC) is an individual membership in NARALO, just like yours, and a year from now I may be turfed out on my ear with no affiliation with ICANN at all. Alan
On 09/24/2009 01:58 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: I don't agree with your reading. First of all, the ALAC is an "Advisory Committee" not a "Supporting Organization". The history of ICANN demonstrates that those are rather different things. Second you are hanging a lot on the word "select" (and variations of that word). There is a lot of history behind "select" - California law imposes a number of (good) requirements on "membership" corporations, which arise when there is an election to fill board seats. ICANN danced around that and made a big deal about calling the elections "selections" in order to evade the statute. See: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members By-the-way, "select" != "appoint". Third you found an instance in which the bylaws use the word At-Large Community. I don't read that use as defining an equivalence between "At-Large Community" and ALAC+RALO+ALS, particularly in light of the subsequent j.3 that suggests that "community" is something more broad. And finally the board resolution referred to and approved a board working group recommendation that was based on our ALAC review working group recommendation - and in our recommendation we made it very clear that we intended a broad reading that went beyond the bounds of the existing ALAC to encompass every user of the net. I have serious doubts that we would have been able to muster a majority on our working group had our recommendation be that that the board seats only be open to- and selected by- ALAC/RALO/ALS people. Apart from semantically nit-picking apart the board resolution, it is hard to reconcile ICANN as a "public-benefit" body (which is what it is under the law of its incorporation) with the dependent ALAC/RALO/ALS tangle as the sole path to onto ICANN's primary decision making bodies. I (and others) had to fight hard to get our working group to overturn the Westlake recommendation that there be no publicly chosen directors. I would not have bothered had our goal been to make it an ALAC/RALO/ALS-only process. --karl--
At 24/09/2009 06:52 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
I don't agree with your reading.
First of all, the ALAC is an "Advisory Committee" not a "Supporting Organization". The history of ICANN demonstrates that those are rather different things.
True, but the addition of a voting board member is a new innovation, and so I was looking at the only other lace where such board members are named by part of the organization.
Second you are hanging a lot on the word "select" (and variations of that word). There is a lot of history behind "select" - California law imposes a number of (good) requirements on "membership" corporations, which arise when there is an election to fill board seats. ICANN danced around that and made a big deal about calling the elections "selections" in order to evade the statute. See: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members
By-the-way, "select" != "appoint".
Actually, I was not hanging anything on the word "select" and in fact I used the term "select/elect". I was just copying the wording in the Bylaws.
Third you found an instance in which the bylaws use the word At-Large Community. I don't read that use as defining an equivalence between "At-Large Community" and ALAC+RALO+ALS, particularly in light of the subsequent j.3 that suggests that "community" is something more broad.
The wording in j.3 is :Promoting outreach activities in the community of individual Internet users" which I took to say that "the "At-Large Community" (ALC) should do further outreach, not that they were one. If they were part of the ALC, they would have been included in the previous section. But perhaps that is just my reading.
And finally the board resolution referred to and approved a board working group recommendation that was based on our ALAC review working group recommendation - and in our recommendation we made it very clear that we intended a broad reading that went beyond the bounds of the existing ALAC to encompass every user of the net.
I have serious doubts that we would have been able to muster a majority on our working group had our recommendation be that that the board seats only be open to- and selected by- ALAC/RALO/ALS people.
Apart from semantically nit-picking apart the board resolution, it is hard to reconcile ICANN as a "public-benefit" body (which is what it is under the law of its incorporation) with the dependent ALAC/RALO/ALS tangle as the sole path to onto ICANN's primary decision making bodies.
I (and others) had to fight hard to get our working group to overturn the Westlake recommendation that there be no publicly chosen directors. I would not have bothered had our goal been to make it an ALAC/RALO/ALS-only process.
--karl--
All of that is no doubt an accurate reading of the situation. But not being privy to the Internet discussions in the review committee, the SIC or the Board, I can only go with what has been publicly presented. I have no illusion as to what the "truth" is, or even what the proper way forward is. I was just presenting my reading of the Bylaws in relation to the subject at hand. But I am encouraged by the good (and civil) debate going on here... Alan
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Third you found an instance in which the bylaws use the word At-Large Community. I don't read that use as defining an equivalence between "At-Large Community" and ALAC+RALO+ALS, particularly in light of the subsequent j.3 that suggests that "community" is something more broad.
The wording in j.3 is :Promoting outreach activities in the community of individual Internet users" which I took to say that "the "At-Large Community" (ALC) should do further outreach, not that they were one. If they were part of the ALC, they would have been included in the previous section. But perhaps that is just my reading.
Alan's interpretation is full of specifics and things that are stated. Karl's interpretation is highly dependent on vagueness and things that may be "suggested". There is quite a clear distinction made between the "At-Large Community" and the "community of individual Internet users", both of which are explicitly referred to repeated times. Indeed, the phrase "community of individual Internet users" is even mentioned once completely outside the context of At-Large -- in III.3 -- where the Manager of Public Participation is charged with maintaining communications with it. We have membership in "the At-Large Community" defined explicitly in XI.2.4.i, and -- sorry Karl -- it *does* say clearly that it is ALAC+RALO+ALS. While there is no mention of the "community of individual Internet users", the authors made explicit -- in XI.2.4.i.3 -- that individuals are expected to participate in At-Large through ALSs. And XI.2.4.h makes clear that allowing non-ALS-affiliated individuals to participate directly is optional and at the discretion of each region. So... like it or not ... this is what we are dealing with. At-Large is charged with representing the interests of the "community of individual Internet users", its components have the sole formal relationship with ICANN. It is not coincidental that the word "community" is capitalized in relation to At-Large but left in lower case for the undefined community of individual users. So when the Board says that the At-Large Community is to appoint the new Board member, there really is no ambiguity. Wishful thinking for a different result, perhaps, but not ambiguity.
I would not have bothered had our goal been to make it an ALAC/RALO/ALS-only process.
Well, that's what we got. So if Karl and Danny want to keep railing against that reality, if being "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" is a preferred state of mind, they're welcome to it. In the meantime, the rest of us have a job to do in actually implementing what the Board asked us to do. These two debates are quite different, and mixing them together simply frustrates everyone. - Evan
Hello Karl, you wrote:
When I say "community of internet users" I do not mean things like ALS or RALO.
Membership in some ICANN approved organization ought not to be a pre-condition to the ability to run-for, vote for, or occupy a seat on the ICANN board of directors or any other ICANN body.
It doesn't. I am living proof of that. What you need in order to do what you describe is: 1. a lot of energy 2. to prove to others that you have the time and determination to work for free for the common good of all 3. to be a nice person and be able to get along with others 4. integrity 5. a thick skin - because you'll receive ad-hominem attacks before you even receive your first congratulation, and those complaints are not from your fellow At Large members, but from people external to ICANN, ready to tag you with an ICANN poison sticker 6. to have a good knowledge of (a) processes and (b) 7. to understand when you're in the wrong and others are right. To respect the consensus. etc. I am sure there are a lot more conditions to running for elections, but one which I did *not* encounter was one where I was told "sorry you can't run, you're not a member in an ICANN approved organization". Cheers, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrés Piazza -
At-Large Staff -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
JFC Morfin -
Karl Auerbach -
McTim -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Thompson, Darlene