Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
(moving discussion to public list, since guidelines are linked publicly) Interesting, but plainly different from what we've been operating under to date. Your second criterion would not be my interpretation of the Bylaws' command that ALSs be "established in such a way that participation by individual Internet users ... will predominate in the operation of each At-Large Structure." Given that this is the only place individuals are recognized as participants, I'd hate to water down their voices even more by putting them in contention with organizations. Further, I'd rather see ALAC and NCUC cooperating than competing for members. I think it's right for us to suggest that orgs-of-orgs join the NCUC. --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Committee:
I'm happy to be able to get this to you now - sorry for the delay but I thought it would be important that it be very solid from a legal perspective.
It is attached to the agenda page now too
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom -- 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/
I agree with Wendy that NCUC and ALAC should cooperate and supplement, not compete. With that in mind, I propose to have a join ALAC - NCUC meeting in Lisbon which we used to have at every ICANN meeting. The best timing would be on Tuesday, during our second ALAC meeting, for say 60 minutes. Either from around 5 pm, or after we conclude our business. Given LSE report, ALS application issues, and coming ALAC review, etc, I thinkg it's important to address the functions and positions of these two committee/consituency and also larger civil society/user participation at ICANN process - for not only ALC, but also for ALS/RALOs. Many thanks, izumi 2007/3/6, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
(moving discussion to public list, since guidelines are linked publicly)
Interesting, but plainly different from what we've been operating under to date. Your second criterion would not be my interpretation of the Bylaws' command that ALSs be "established in such a way that participation by individual Internet users ... will predominate in the operation of each At-Large Structure."
Given that this is the only place individuals are recognized as participants, I'd hate to water down their voices even more by putting them in contention with organizations. Further, I'd rather see ALAC and NCUC cooperating than competing for members. I think it's right for us to suggest that orgs-of-orgs join the NCUC.
--Wendy
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Committee:
I'm happy to be able to get this to you now - sorry for the delay but I thought it would be important that it be very solid from a legal perspective.
It is attached to the agenda page now too
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom -- 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
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
I agree. The only thing is that given the way that the last NCUC/ALAC meeting that I attended went, it will be important to structure the discussion so that it doesnt degenerate into a rant on how ALAC isnt what it was years ago, and how it should be scrapped without any more practical solutions being voiced. With regard to the draft guidelines, I think they are OK, but I do have a concern about the number of votes to turn down an application. Instead of ¾ votes for approval, we now have ¾ votes required for non-approval. So its basically an automatic approval process, which I dont have a problem with, personally, but it needs to be considered seriously, as this is a major change in philosophy for the ALAC. From past discussions, I know Wendy is (of the ALAC members who were involved in that discussion still here so far) pro automatic approval, and I tend towards the same point of view, but other may have different positions. Jacqueline From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:23 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications I agree with Wendy that NCUC and ALAC should cooperate and supplement, not compete. With that in mind, I propose to have a join ALAC - NCUC meeting in Lisbon which we used to have at every ICANN meeting. The best timing would be on Tuesday, during our second ALAC meeting, for say 60 minutes. Either from around 5 pm, or after we conclude our business. Given LSE report, ALS application issues, and coming ALAC review, etc, I thinkg it's important to address the functions and positions of these two committee/consituency and also larger civil society/user participation at ICANN process - for not only ALC, but also for ALS/RALOs. Many thanks, izumi 2007/3/6, Wendy Seltzer <HYPERLINK "mailto:wendy@seltzer.com"wendy@seltzer.com>: (moving discussion to public list, since guidelines are linked publicly) Interesting, but plainly different from what we've been operating under to date. Your second criterion would not be my interpretation of the Bylaws' command that ALSs be "established in such a way that participation by individual Internet users ... will predominate in the operation of each At-Large Structure." Given that this is the only place individuals are recognized as participants, I'd hate to water down their voices even more by putting them in contention with organizations. Further, I'd rather see ALAC and NCUC cooperating than competing for members. I think it's right for us to suggest that orgs-of-orgs join the NCUC. --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Committee:
I'm happy to be able to get this to you now - sorry for the delay but I thought it would be important that it be very solid from a legal perspective.
It is attached to the agenda page now too
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom -- Wendy Seltzer -- HYPERLINK "mailto:wendy@seltzer.org"wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society HYPERLINK "http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html"http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/selt zer.html HYPERLINK "http://www.chillingeffects.org/"http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list HYPERLINK "mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org"ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org HYPERLINK "http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or g"http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.o rg HYPERLINK "http://www.alac.icann.org"www.alac.icann.org HYPERLINK "http://www.icannalac.org"www.icannalac.org -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> HYPERLINK "http://www.anr.org"www.anr.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 8:07 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 8:07 AM
participants (3)
-
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Wendy Seltzer