ALS lists - why no public archive?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but looking around the ALAC site information about ALS is pretty lacking. Particularly, why aren't the ALS mailing lists archives visible to non-members? If ALS exist to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN..." etc etc, how can they do this if the ALS lists are closed, if we can't see how policy is made, with what degree of support, who was involved. What are the ALS doing? Not suggesting ALS lists should be open to non ALS members, but if their recommendations, and "bottom up" policy represented by ALAC in ICANN is to be taken seriously, then there should be transparency. Thanks, Adam
Adam, they are archived: http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac/ http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:59 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but looking around the ALAC site information about ALS is pretty lacking. Particularly, why aren't the ALS mailing lists archives visible to non-members?
If ALS exist to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN..." etc etc, how can they do this if the ALS lists are closed, if we can't see how policy is made, with what degree of support, who was involved. What are the ALS doing?
Not suggesting ALS lists should be open to non ALS members, but if their recommendations, and "bottom up" policy represented by ALAC in ICANN is to be taken seriously, then there should be transparency.
Thanks,
Adam
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
At 8:46 PM -0700 4/8/07, Bret Fausett wrote:
Adam, they are archived:
Bret (Nick, happy holiday!), I'm obviously not explaining myself very well. I know about the archives*. I know there's a council list and regional discussion lists. What I cannot see are archives of the ALS discussion lists. Perhaps I am wrong, but if the ALS are to represent the views of individuals users, then it is the policy discussions happening at that level that represent the bottom-up process ALAC's about. If ALAC's opinion are to carry weight (and I think there are great opportunities for ALAC to take on more direct leadership roles if it can show good process for representing the views of individuals) then the ICANN community's going to want to see that the policy being recommended, people being sent as representatives, really comes from users and represents those users views. I've looked for ALS sites, some don't seem to exist, some don't seem to discuss ICANN issues. If there isn't more activity and transparency then I suspect the rest of ICANN will start to wonder if there's any depth to these structures. Nick mentioned one other thing I should clarify: At 4:27 PM +0100 4/8/07, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: <snip>
The ALS mailing lists could easily be made available to non-members - the reason that they are not is only to reduce the spam received by the participants of the list from bots crawling the archives if they were public.
I wasn't suggesting that everyone should have posting rights, perfectly reasonable to have lists where only the ALS reps and their members can post. But those lists should have archives that can be seen by anyone. I can't imagine ALS representatives discussing anything private - I'd imagine these would be lists where ideas from the ALS would bubble up for regional discussion. Open archive won't effect spam etc. Adam (BTW, there's one archive I can't find, that's for the address alac@icann.org)
http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac/
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:59 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but looking around the ALAC site information about ALS is pretty lacking. Particularly, why aren't the ALS mailing lists archives visible to non-members?
If ALS exist to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN..." etc etc, how can they do this if the ALS lists are closed, if we can't see how policy is made, with what degree of support, who was involved. What are the ALS doing?
Not suggesting ALS lists should be open to non ALS members, but if their recommendations, and "bottom up" policy represented by ALAC in ICANN is to be taken seriously, then there should be transparency.
Thanks,
Adam
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
I'm obviously not explaining myself very well.
Ok, I think I'm getting closer to what you're seeking. Are you asking for list archives of the individual At Large Structures? For example, I'm a member of an accredited ALS called "Web405," consisting primarily of Internet professionals in Southern California. You can subscribe to the list easily (see http://www.web405.org/ ) but a long time ago, Web405 members agreed to "No public archiving of Web405 messages." (see http://www.web405.org/guidelines.html ) We've recently talked about new TLDs generally and .XXX specifically, but we have no public archives...by express choice so we're not haunted by our out-dated opinions years from now in Google searches. This strikes me as a reasonable choice for a group of people to make. If you're looking for a publicly archived list of respresentatives from the various ALSs to talk specifically about ICANN policy, then I think you're talking about the RALO lists which, to the best of my knowledge, are publicly archived. (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo ) -- Bret
At 10:06 PM -0700 4/8/07, Bret Fausett wrote:
I'm obviously not explaining myself very well.
Ok, I think I'm getting closer to what you're seeking. Are you asking for list archives of the individual At Large Structures?
I was thinking these: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afri-als_atlarge-lists.icann...> (All Accredited At Large Structures (ALS) in Africa) <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-als_atlarge-lists.icann...> (ALS Reps in Asia-Pacific) <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-als_atlarge-lists.icann...> (European ALS Representatives) <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-als_atlarge-lists.icann....> (ALS Reps in LAC At-Large) <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_atlarge-lists.icann.org>? (North American Region ALS Discussions) I might be misunderstanding what they actually do -- I was guessing their function was to bring together discussion from the individual ALS (like Web405) so ideas are taken from the individual level to the ALAC.
For example, I'm a member of an accredited ALS called "Web405," consisting primarily of Internet professionals in Southern California. You can subscribe to the list easily (see http://www.web405.org/ ) but a long time ago, Web405 members agreed to "No public archiving of Web405 messages." (see http://www.web405.org/guidelines.html ) We've recently talked about new TLDs generally and .XXX specifically, but we have no public archives...by express choice so we're not haunted by our out-dated opinions years from now in Google searches. This strikes me as a reasonable choice for a group of people to make.
It's good that Web405 is active. And I take your point about why you don't want to archive. But of you are an ALS, can't you at least make some comment about ICANN on the site -- this is what we think about x (or xxx)? If they are all like Web405 (an some don't even have websites) then the ALS might look like shells. I should explain why I think this important. On another ALAC list (alac@icann.org, can't find the archive or I'd link to the posts) and a thread "ICANN Seeks Public Comments on Proposed Termsof Reference..." I wrote: "I think ALAC (ALS and RALOs) should see the review as a great opportunity to show what that can do. That the Nominating Committee's being reviewed at the same time might be seen as an opportunity: what can the RALOs and ALS contribute to the NomCom, could the[y] play a greater role in making selections? (NomCom's missed named: it's a selection committee.) NomCom (I'm the associate chair, but speaking for myself not the committee) held a workshop in Lisbon. Not very well attended, but Vint Cerf's comments are worth noting <http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-nomcom-28mar07.htm> VINT CERF: It occurs to me -- I can't predict this, of course, but it occurs to me that if we are successful with the rapidly forming RALO structure that some day we might imagine that board members might be appointed by those RALOs. We're not there yet. But is it possible that we can now go to the formed RALOs and say, in emulation of what might ultimately occur, can you supply recommendations for people to serve on the ALAC. (end [Vint] quote) Not the first time I've heard Vint mention this possibility. ALAC proving that it really does enable "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN" would be a good challenge for the review. It's not clear to me how how that really happens. Adam" So I can see a time when ALAC might select Directors, and might be able to move from providing non-voting liaisons to other supporting organizations to taking on a voting role. This possibility has been mentioned by Vint and others --tentatively, with caveats--, but it seems to be there as a possibility. But I think we can be sure this won't happen unless it is clear to all that the ALS are really functioning to bring the views of Internet users. Transparency is essential, or ALS, RALO and ALAC may look like a few individuals rather than something more representative. ALAC currently does not have a strong reputation with the rest of the ICANN community. Thanks, Adam
If you're looking for a publicly archived list of respresentatives from the various ALSs to talk specifically about ICANN policy, then I think you're talking about the RALO lists which, to the best of my knowledge, are publicly archived. (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo )
-- Bret
Adam Peake ha scritto:
I might be misunderstanding what they actually do -- I was guessing their function was to bring together discussion from the individual ALS (like Web405) so ideas are taken from the individual level to the ALAC.
At least in Europe (but for what I've seen is the same everywhere), we're having all discussions on the -discuss lists, which are also open to individuals and everyone interested. We've just used the -als list once recently, when one ALS representative complained that messages sent through the -discuss list weren't "official" and would get lost in the discussion anyway. In any case, I see no reason why those archives shouldn't be open (even if, sometimes, there might be the need to discuss individuals for appointments in a candid way, and that's why, I guess, Nick made it private) - but I hope we're not getting into a week of discussions for the archive of a quasi-dead announcement list :-)
I should explain why I think this important. On another ALAC list (alac@icann.org, can't find the archive or I'd link to the posts)
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/
So I can see a time when ALAC might select Directors, and might be able to move from providing non-voting liaisons to other supporting organizations to taking on a voting role. This possibility has been mentioned by Vint and others --tentatively, with caveats--, but it seems to be there as a possibility. But I think we can be sure this won't happen unless it is clear to all that the ALS are really functioning to bring the views of Internet users.
Sure, just like the Business Constituency (which already appoints Directors) is really functioning to bring the views of the average business of the world that uses the Internet. (No offense implied to the BC - just wondering why the At Large always gets higher bars for legitimacy than anyone else.) Ciao, P.S. By the way - could you please pass me the link to the archive of the BC mailing lists? And what about those of the GAC? Did you also check whether each GAC member (let's say, their Ministry) has a properly functioning website, and whether it features anything about ICANN on its front page? I think you'd be surprised :-) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
At 9:21 AM +0200 4/9/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Adam Peake ha scritto:
I might be misunderstanding what they actually do -- I was guessing their function was to bring together discussion from the individual ALS (like Web405) so ideas are taken from the individual level to the ALAC.
At least in Europe (but for what I've seen is the same everywhere), we're having all discussions on the -discuss lists, which are also open to individuals and everyone interested. We've just used the -als list once recently, when one ALS representative complained that messages sent through the -discuss list weren't "official" and would get lost in the discussion anyway.
OK. So the ALS encourage their members to get involved in the regional discuss lists? Are they successful?
In any case, I see no reason why those archives shouldn't be open (even if, sometimes, there might be the need to discuss individuals for appointments in a candid way, and that's why, I guess, Nick made it private) - but I hope we're not getting into a week of discussions for the archive of a quasi-dead announcement list :-)
No, please, definitely not a discussion of whether or not to open an email archive! I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works. ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions." and to be organised around individual participation, etc. <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm> Does the current ALAC structure achieve this? I've been trying to work out what role (if any) the ALS and perhaps those lists were playing in informing users. It's not clear to me how the ALS (therefore RALO and ALAC) are supporting this commitment to informed participation etc. And as I've tried to explain, given the review (of ALAC and NomCom), Vint's and other's comments, if ALAC can show it is really representing user interests through a solid "bottom-up" process, then it has a opportunities for much greater influence in ICANN. Current set up seems as though there is almost a cutoff between the individuals who should be the membership of ALS and policy development. They are asked to join one organization so they can be recognized, then join a different group to discuss policy. Organise locally, but discuss policy regionally. Awkward, no? I might be confused, perhaps you could point to the policy discussion of the ALS you represent and the other ALS that have recently formed the EU RALO? How many of your ALS members (ISOC IT) subscribe of the EU RALO discuss list? I have a feeling that without clear evidence that the policy coming from ALAC is representative of individual users views, then ALAC will never grow beyond it's current weak position in ICANN's organizational structure.
I should explain why I think this important. On another ALAC list (alac@icann.org, can't find the archive or I'd link to the posts)
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/
Thanks, I'd been going around in circles looking at that list and not seeing the posts I wanted to quote. duh.
So I can see a time when ALAC might select Directors, and might be able to move from providing non-voting liaisons to other supporting organizations to taking on a voting role. This possibility has been mentioned by Vint and others --tentatively, with caveats--, but it seems to be there as a possibility. But I think we can be sure this won't happen unless it is clear to all that the ALS are really functioning to bring the views of Internet users.
Sure, just like the Business Constituency (which already appoints Directors) is really functioning to bring the views of the average business of the world that uses the Internet. (No offense implied to the BC - just wondering why the At Large always gets higher bars for legitimacy than anyone else.)
Why should we care about the Business Constituency? [which doesn't appoint directors, it's one of six GNSO constituencies, the GNSO collectively (including its NomCom appointed councillors) elects two directors.] Why set the bar low for ALAC? ALAC's task is to represent individuals, we should set our own standards, not look to how others have got out of their commitments.
Ciao,
P.S. By the way - could you please pass me the link to the archive of the BC mailing lists? And what about those of the GAC? Did you also check whether each GAC member (let's say, their Ministry) has a properly functioning website, and whether it features anything about ICANN on its front page? I think you'd be surprised :-)
Who cares! Thanks, Adam
-- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
At 08:38 AM 4/9/2007, Adam Peake wrote:
I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works.
ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions." and to be organised around individual participation, etc. <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>
Does the current ALAC structure achieve this?
NO. --Wendy (more later) -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Agree, the current ALAC structure does not support individual Internet users participation. Not sure the RALO's will either unless there is a commitment to truly supporting/ensuring their engagement. alice Wendy Seltzer wrote:
At 08:38 AM 4/9/2007, Adam Peake wrote:
I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works.
ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions." and to be organised around individual participation, etc. <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>
Does the current ALAC structure achieve this?
NO.
--Wendy (more later)
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
Hi Alice As we discussed briefly during the Lisboa meeting, several of the RALOs have determined that individual users do not participate on the same footing as the organized ALSes. We said then that the ALAC needed to look into possible alternate methods to allow individual users to participate - one idea was a 6th RALO for individuals... Should we start a working group to brainstorm ideas for better participation? If so - who'd be interested in looking at those options - Wendy, Alice? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:48 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive? Agree, the current ALAC structure does not support individual Internet users participation. Not sure the RALO's will either unless there is a commitment to truly supporting/ensuring their engagement. alice Wendy Seltzer wrote:
At 08:38 AM 4/9/2007, Adam Peake wrote:
I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works.
ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions." and to be organised around individual participation, etc. <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>
Does the current ALAC structure achieve this?
NO.
--Wendy (more later)
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
Another good place for this discussion is to recommend additions/changes to the Terms of Reference of the ALAC review. Perhaps better, since that ultimately gets to the Board as outside review: <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07.htm> --Wendy Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hi Alice As we discussed briefly during the Lisboa meeting, several of the RALOs have determined that individual users do not participate on the same footing as the organized ALSes. We said then that the ALAC needed to look into possible alternate methods to allow individual users to participate - one idea was a 6th RALO for individuals... Should we start a working group to brainstorm ideas for better participation? If so - who'd be interested in looking at those options - Wendy, Alice? Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:48 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive?
Agree, the current ALAC structure does not support individual Internet users participation. Not sure the RALO's will either unless there is a commitment to truly supporting/ensuring their engagement.
alice
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
At 08:38 AM 4/9/2007, Adam Peake wrote:
I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works.
ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions." and to be organised around individual participation, etc. <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>
Does the current ALAC structure achieve this?
NO.
--Wendy (more later)
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Good point Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:48 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: 'alice'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive? Another good place for this discussion is to recommend additions/changes to the Terms of Reference of the ALAC review. Perhaps better, since that ultimately gets to the Board as outside review: <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07.htm> --Wendy Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hi Alice As we discussed briefly during the Lisboa meeting, several of the RALOs have determined that individual users do not participate on the same footing as the organized ALSes. We said then that the ALAC needed to look into possible alternate methods to allow individual users to participate - one idea was a 6th RALO for individuals... Should we start a working group to brainstorm ideas for better participation? If so - who'd be interested in looking at those options - Wendy, Alice? Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:48 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive?
Agree, the current ALAC structure does not support individual Internet users participation. Not sure the RALO's will either unless there is a commitment to truly supporting/ensuring their engagement.
alice
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
At 08:38 AM 4/9/2007, Adam Peake wrote:
I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works.
ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions." and to be organised around individual participation, etc. <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>
Does the current ALAC structure achieve this?
NO.
--Wendy (more later)
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
Yes I do recall having this discussion and think it is worthwhile exploring other ways to engage individual users. Willing to be part of a working group for this. best alice Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hi Alice As we discussed briefly during the Lisboa meeting, several of the RALOs have determined that individual users do not participate on the same footing as the organized ALSes. We said then that the ALAC needed to look into possible alternate methods to allow individual users to participate - one idea was a 6th RALO for individuals... Should we start a working group to brainstorm ideas for better participation? If so - who'd be interested in looking at those options - Wendy, Alice? Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:48 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive?
Agree, the current ALAC structure does not support individual Internet users participation. Not sure the RALO's will either unless there is a commitment to truly supporting/ensuring their engagement.
alice
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
At 08:38 AM 4/9/2007, Adam Peake wrote:
I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works.
ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions." and to be organised around individual participation, etc. <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>
Does the current ALAC structure achieve this?
NO.
--Wendy (more later)
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
Hi Alice, Jacqueline at AfRLO we did not have discussion about user's participation yet . but i think we should find possible ways to engage the ordinary/mass internet user's in policy development process or commenting on policies that well effect the way they use the internet . both options could go along, ALSes as certified entities representing internet user's in a geographical territory, and tools to enable general internet user's input/comments. i will be intersted to participate in further discussion on the topic. Regards, MB Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hi Alice As we discussed briefly during the Lisboa meeting, several of the RALOs have determined that individual users do not participate on the same footing as the organized ALSes. We said then that the ALAC needed to look into possible alternate methods to allow individual users to participate - one idea was a 6th RALO for individuals... Should we start a working group to brainstorm ideas for better participation? If so - who'd be interested in looking at those options - Wendy, Alice? Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:48 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive?
Agree, the current ALAC structure does not support individual Internet users participation. Not sure the RALO's will either unless there is a commitment to truly supporting/ensuring their engagement.
alice
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
At 08:38 AM 4/9/2007, Adam Peake wrote:
I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works.
ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions." and to be organised around individual participation, etc. <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>
Does the current ALAC structure achieve this?
NO.
--Wendy (more later)
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
Hi Adam Maybe if I go through how it applies to an ALS that I am a member of (TTCS)- in the LACRALO, which is the longest-serving RALO (all of 3 months!) Information, requests for comment, policy issues, etc get posted to Lac-discuss. The members of the ALS who are subscribed to LAC-Discuss (in the case of this ALS at least) take that info and retransmit it to our own mailing list, where discussion takes place with the individual members. They may or may not continue this discussion with other groups that they are involved in who may not be ALSes. We may also discuss the issues at our monthly f2f meetings. Some ppl then summarise the discussion or position that we come to, and take it back to the RALO as the ALS input. For other groups in LAC that either cannot join as an ALS or haven't come to that decision yet, that I'm a member of (like the caribbean CIVIC), I take the info and post it on their list or otherwise bring it up for discussion, take the responses and retransmit them. I don't think that a lot of the individual members of the ALS of which I am a member want to necessarily join a new list. We've informed them, but they haven't joined in a major way. In LAC it's also sometimes a language issue. I know it sounds very complex, but it's been only 3 months. Maybe as time goes by, and the autotranslation facility goes live on the list, the LAC discuss list will be more active with individuals. Hope this helps Jacqueline Quoting Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>:
At 9:21 AM +0200 4/9/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Adam Peake ha scritto:
I might be misunderstanding what they actually do -- I was guessing their function was to bring together discussion from the individual ALS (like Web405) so ideas are taken from the individual level to the ALAC.
At least in Europe (but for what I've seen is the same everywhere), we're having all discussions on the -discuss lists, which are also open to individuals and everyone interested. We've just used the -als list once recently, when one ALS representative complained that messages sent through the -discuss list weren't "official" and would get lost in the discussion anyway.
OK.
So the ALS encourage their members to get involved in the regional discuss lists? Are they successful?
In any case, I see no reason why those archives shouldn't be open (even if, sometimes, there might be the need to discuss individuals for appointments in a candid way, and that's why, I guess, Nick made it private) - but I hope we're not getting into a week of discussions for the archive of a quasi-dead announcement list :-)
No, please, definitely not a discussion of whether or not to open an email archive!
I am just trying to understand how the ALAC structure works.
ALS have a pretty clear mandate to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions." and to be organised around individual participation, etc. <http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>
Does the current ALAC structure achieve this?
I've been trying to work out what role (if any) the ALS and perhaps those lists were playing in informing users. It's not clear to me how the ALS (therefore RALO and ALAC) are supporting this commitment to informed participation etc. And as I've tried to explain, given the review (of ALAC and NomCom), Vint's and other's comments, if ALAC can show it is really representing user interests through a solid "bottom-up" process, then it has a opportunities for much greater influence in ICANN.
Current set up seems as though there is almost a cutoff between the individuals who should be the membership of ALS and policy development. They are asked to join one organization so they can be recognized, then join a different group to discuss policy. Organise locally, but discuss policy regionally. Awkward, no?
I might be confused, perhaps you could point to the policy discussion of the ALS you represent and the other ALS that have recently formed the EU RALO? How many of your ALS members (ISOC IT) subscribe of the EU RALO discuss list?
I have a feeling that without clear evidence that the policy coming from ALAC is representative of individual users views, then ALAC will never grow beyond it's current weak position in ICANN's organizational structure.
I should explain why I think this important. On another ALAC list (alac@icann.org, can't find the archive or I'd link to the posts)
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/
Thanks, I'd been going around in circles looking at that list and not seeing the posts I wanted to quote. duh.
So I can see a time when ALAC might select Directors, and might be able to move from providing non-voting liaisons to other supporting organizations to taking on a voting role. This possibility has been mentioned by Vint and others --tentatively, with caveats--, but it seems to be there as a possibility. But I think we can be sure this won't happen unless it is clear to all that the ALS are really functioning to bring the views of Internet users.
Sure, just like the Business Constituency (which already appoints Directors) is really functioning to bring the views of the average business of the world that uses the Internet. (No offense implied to the BC - just wondering why the At Large always gets higher bars for legitimacy than anyone else.)
Why should we care about the Business Constituency? [which doesn't appoint directors, it's one of six GNSO constituencies, the GNSO collectively (including its NomCom appointed councillors) elects two directors.]
Why set the bar low for ALAC? ALAC's task is to represent individuals, we should set our own standards, not look to how others have got out of their commitments.
Ciao,
P.S. By the way - could you please pass me the link to the archive of the BC mailing lists? And what about those of the GAC? Did you also check whether each GAC member (let's say, their Ministry) has a properly functioning website, and whether it features anything about ICANN on its front page? I think you'd be surprised :-)
Who cares!
Thanks,
Adam
-- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com
My impression of the way it works is that ICANN sends the same periodic notices about participation and comment opportunities to the designated ALS representative that it sends to everyone in the world who subscribes to the ICANN Announce list. What happens when a notice is received by the ALS is completely up to the ALS. The response typically is one or more of: (1) redistribute announcement to members; (2) post announcement to web; (3) do nothing with announcement; (4) engage in policy debate and provide feedback to ICANN. As I understand the relationship, based on the typical RALO MOU, the ALS has a non-enforceable obligation to distribute information from ICANN. The ALS has no obligation to respond to ICANN, consider the issues presented or engage in any policy discussion or debate. If the ALS chooses to respond, ICANN has a non-enforceable obligation to receive the response. It's very light-weight. My first impression of the ALSs at work is that most ALSs will receive and redistribute information but not engage in anything substantive. -- Bret
Adam Peake ha scritto:
So the ALS encourage their members to get involved in the regional discuss lists? Are they successful?
It's often the opposite, there is someone inside an ALS who particularly cares about ICANN issues, so raises awareness inside his/her organization, gets it accredited, and participates in discussions, getting back to the ALS mailing list or assembly when there is something interesting to report or to discuss. All in all, I tend to see one, sometimes two active individuals per ALS, though you'd have to get into each individual ALS to understand how much they liaise back with their own community. There are not hundreds of individuals eager to participate in ICANN policy discussions anyway (we don't do consumer surveys for ICANN, by the way - should we? we've been discussing that sometimes, but I don't see how a group of volunteers could do that kind of work in a statistically meaningful way on a global scale).
I've been trying to work out what role (if any) the ALS and perhaps those lists were playing in informing users. It's not clear to me how the ALS (therefore RALO and ALAC) are supporting this commitment to informed participation etc. And as I've tried to explain, given the review (of ALAC and NomCom), Vint's and other's comments, if ALAC can show it is really representing user interests through a solid "bottom-up" process, then it has a opportunities for much greater influence in ICANN.
Current set up seems as though there is almost a cutoff between the individuals who should be the membership of ALS
"should be"? All the ALSes have individual members (even if we now have orgs of orgs pushing to get in, and getting quite upset if we tell them no, so they might be allowed to join in the future).
and policy development. They are asked to join one organization so they can be recognized, then join a different group to discuss policy. Organise locally, but discuss policy regionally. Awkward, no?
You usually don't join an ALS just to participate in ICANN. You already formed a group locally that deals with this kind of issues, then you decide that you want to be involved in ICANN directly, and you sign up. It's also very unlikely that you're interested in ICANN and nothing else, more likely you're interested in broad Internet governance issues (possibly more in the content-related ones) and pick ICANN as a part of it when something particularly interesting comes up there.
I might be confused, perhaps you could point to the policy discussion of the ALS you represent and the other ALS that have recently formed the EU RALO? How many of your ALS members (ISOC IT) subscribe of the EU RALO discuss list?
None but me. They delegate me to take care of this. ISOC Italy is an organization with about 100 members, most of which join just to stay tuned and support the education and lobbying activities that we do. About a third, I'd say, is active on the internal general discussion mailing list. A few of them are active beyond that, e.g. Council members, and among them they take responsibilities for different parts of the job. So I took ICANN because I liked it :) Why do you think that it could be different? Do you really expect, say, 25 people * 20 ALSes = 500 individuals active at the European level on the same mailing list on ICANN-related issues? That'd be quite an unintelligible discussion, by the way. Most people like to support and delegate work to someone else :)
I have a feeling that without clear evidence that the policy coming from ALAC is representative of individual users views, then ALAC will never grow beyond it's current weak position in ICANN's organizational structure.
It is representative to the extent that people are actually interested not just in discussing these arcane issues like on any web forum (or like at the pub, in front of a beer) but actually devoting a lot of time for actual participation in policy making processes. Certainly there might be issues (e.g. .xxx) where thousands of end users have strong views, but they'll never bother to join any kind of process just for that - they'll just flood paul.twomey@icann.org with form letters (which, by the way, is what actually happened with .xxx). It is not this kind of "user participation" that we are talking about. We are talking about a much smaller subset of users that are interested in advocating user views and participating to painfully slow policy making processes over a span of several years - and of course there's very few of them. So we have a complex structure to ensure that those few have some kind of representational selection process behind them, which of course is more objective and legitimate as the number of participants grows up.
Why set the bar low for ALAC? ALAC's task is to represent individuals, we should set our own standards, not look to how others have got out of their commitments.
Fair point, but pardon me if I'm somewhat reluctant to start again questioning the legitimacy of this process after several years. In terms of transparency, I think that we're as open as one could be. In terms of accessibility, any user group in the world can join for free, and is likely to find people in their own Region as a friendly contact, possibly in their own language. We can discuss how effective we were in reaching out, and of course anything can be made better, but only within reasonable expectations - and we welcome practical proposals on how to make things better, if you have any. On the other hand, if the requirement is that we have to get each of one billion Internet users to sign up explicitly to our mailing list, for us to be legitimate... do you really mean that? I don't think so. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
participants (8)
-
Adam Peake -
alice -
Bret Fausett -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
jam＠jacquelinemorris.com
-
Mohammed EL Bashir -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wendy Seltzer