Dear Andres, Thank you for your comments. The ALAC was officially created in December 2002. We have been pursuing this experiment for four long years during which time the DNS policy-related contributions offered by the ALS organizations has been almost nil. By any set of metrics, that is an undeniable failure. Within ICANN we have the ability to recognize and deal with failed efforts -- as an example, we have seen the earlier DNSO (widely regarded as dsyfunctional in the extreme) replaced by the GNSO. I view the ALAC/RALO/ALS construct as a monumental failure that cannot be saved by the expenditure of additional funding or time. Clearly, you don't share my point of view on this matter. Let me ask you this: if you were a businessman that had to make a business decision based on the performance record to date, would you invest in this proposition in view of the return generated thus far? Probably not. Most likely you would seek to restructure/reorganize or find a more suitable model. ICANN has already spent a great deal of time and money seeking a reasonable solution. They commissioned the At-Large Study to provide the Board with recommendations that could enjoy consensus support. This is what they recommended: "The ALSC recommends the creation of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO) as vital to At-Large participation in ICANN. The existing ICANN structure has not fulfilled expectations of directly involving and representing individual Internet users and their interests.") I don't want a powerless ALAC model that offers no hope of representation on the ICANN Board. I want our community to have the benefit of a Supporting Organization model that seats its members on the ICANN Board... I can't imagine that you would prefer to remain powerless and unrepresented? regards, Danny --- Andres Piazza <investigaciones@densi.com.ar> wrote:

Dear Danny,

First of all, I`d like to say that we share your concern about making real and effective contributions to Icann and specially to the areas that, as you said, require improvements. Despite this, I respectfully disagree with your opinions. The ALS process has a huge importance in the Internet Policy Development (and should be like this in every other political aspect). Moreover, the idea of Botton Up Consensus-Based Process is one of the strongers in ICANN, and also one of the main goals of ALAC: To provide the broad advice, and be related to the individual user´s interests.

The job of being instruments for the individuals users, to provide their empowerment, to lend they know, to poll them to get involved and commited first, and to do their contributions later on, is quite tough. I agree that, at this time, ALS didn´t offer the gratest recomendations, but it is a long path to travel and (at least in the LACRALO), I can see a great commitment in the ALS´s members, and also a remarkable job in the some areas. It s too early to disdain the potencial of the individual users to contribute, and it is also very easy for you. ICANN, and specially ALAC, believes strongly in the construction of consensus, and in the participative leadership (it is quite different that being a cheerleader!!). I think you should start doing it too.

Please, dont get me wrong, I´m aware that you are making a great job on your own, but I am convinced that your organization (your are the only member in it) would be stronger and make better contributions to ICANN if you nourish it with other participants. I have no intentions to start a polemic, but I was forced to interfere because all At Large Community is reading this mailing list, and I couldn´t lend someone to believe that ALS are not capable to contribute.

Kind Regards,

Andres Piazza

...

** Andres Piazza** Research Director * AGEIA DENSI**.*** ** ********investigaciones@densi.com.ar <mailto:andresp@ip6technology.com.ar>**

____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail

Just to clarify one point: There is no barrier to ALSes (or actually anyone else) joining the main ALAC list - and speaking personally I hope very much that many will choose to do so. A big part of my desire to move the main ALAC mailing list over to our server was so that the whole community could subscribe to it, and thereby begin to have a real conversation between the committee and their constituents, and I'm very glad to say that this seems to have really taken off. On 07/02/07, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@isoc.lu> wrote:

Danny Younger said the following on 07/02/07 21:23:

We have been pursuing this experiment for four long years during which time the DNS policy-related contributions offered by the ALS organizations has been almost nil.

Danny,

You are correct. On the metrics at least.

Here's the view of an ALS:

What has been done by the ALAC and ICANN to involve the ALSes into the debate ? It has only been a week or so that we actually receive the ALAC mailing list in our mailbox. And this is in read-only mode. As an example, this reply will be moderated once it goes to the alac list. Is this the treatement that ALSes deserve ?

My understanding is that much of the work of the ALAC is done through teleconferences, which ALSes cannot attend. Another part of the work is done face-to-face during ICANN meetings, where most ALSes cannot afford to send a representativefor a week.

In short, ALAC and ICANN seem out of touch viewed from here.

There seems to be a willingess from ICANN to go forward with the ALAC and RALOs. ICANN has assigned a budget for this. There are new mailing lists, wikis and most importantly staff dedicated to bring this all together. I still believe something useful can come of out this.

I don't want a powerless ALAC model that offers no hope of representation on the ICANN Board. I want our community to have the benefit of a Supporting Organization model that seats its members on the ICANN Board.

I think this is what we all want to achieve in the end. And indeed, it is not with sleeping ALses that we are going to reach that goal. How can we wake them up ?

Best,

Patrick Vande Walle

_______________________________________________ EURO-ALS mailing list EURO-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-als_atlarge-lists.icann...

-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

If so my apologies and I'm glad I did just now :) On 07/02/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:

On 2007-02-07 22:10:37 +0000, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

...

Just to clarify one point: There is no barrier to ALSes (or actually anyone else) joining the main ALAC list

I don't think that had actually been communicated so far.

*subscribes*

-- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

Just FYI, the recordings are posted on the SocialText ALAC wiki and so once that is opened to public access (which is in the process of being done as we speak) the community would indeed be able to listen to the meetings. On 07/02/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

...

What has been done by the ALAC and ICANN to involve the ALSes into the debate ? It has only been a week or so that we actually receive the ALAC mailing list in our mailbox. And this is in read-only mode. As an example, this reply will be moderated once it goes to the alac list. Is this the treatement that ALSes deserve ?

You're reading too much into the list setup. All of the ALAC members are subscribed to the various regional lists, so posting stuff to both lists just gives us duplicates in our mailbox. The ALAC has plenty of problems, but insufficient mail contact isn't one of them.

...

My understanding is that much of the work of the ALAC is done through teleconferences, which ALSes cannot attend. Another part of the work is done face-to-face during ICANN meetings, where most ALSes cannot afford to send a representativefor a week.

If you want to listen in, I don't see any reason why that couldn't be arranged. I believe the meetings are recorded, so I'll also see whether we can put mp3's on the net. Don't expect to hear anything terribly thrilling, it's mostly about agendas and lists of administrative things that we need to get done.

Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

Hi Not being aan ICANN historian, I can't say what happened in 2000, 2001, 2002 or 2003. What I can say is that in my part of the world (the Caribbean)  - the Internet is a recent phenomenon. We're still working on access and education. We finally have a small core of people interested and willing to participate.   A lot of the new ALSes are groups of individuals who are now getting into this previously "closed" club.  It's unfair to blame them for years of non-comments when many of them have been ALSes for only 2 or 3 months. They also cannot be expected to comment on policies that we haven't educated them about. What IMO would be more useful from the "old-timers" is posts to the list that explain the policy issues that need input from the groups that are now getting involved. For example, a post that explains the issues surrounding whois and that starts a discussion about how they might affect individual users will certainly get responses. There should be posts that start discussion around the issues and then out of those discussions, positions and comments will arise. And I agree with Alan here - this is the model that ICANN is putting resources towards. If we work to get people involved and show that the RALOs are interested and able, we show that individual users are valuable. And then the at large can push for greater power within ICANN. I think that demanding Board seats without having done anything to "earn" them in many years is putting the cart before the horse. I disagree to some extent with Jeanette - I think it's more bottom-up to start from regional activity and move to global activity. (Not to mention much easier to do outreach and education) So the challenge is - how to  educate those who are interested but may not know about the policy processes and how do we get comments out of the regions and up to ICANN. After that - it's up to us again to make sure that ICANN takes the comments and inputs into consideration. I'd love the conversation to stop looking backwards with anger and regret and look to the future that seems brighter (at least judging by the number of applications that have been coming in in the last year). Please start being productive and helping the individual users get involved in the process that exists and that is being funded, instead of  trying to change the entire process that a few dislike. According to the number of groups joining - not everyone hates it. My 2 cents. Jacqueline Quoting Alan Levin <alan@futureperfect.co.za>:

Hi,

On 07 Feb 2007, at 11:05 PM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

...

Danny Younger said the following  on 07/02/07 21:23:

...

We have been pursuing this experiment for four long years during which time the DNS policy-related contributions offered by the ALS organizations has been almost nil.

...

  There seems to be a willingess from ICANN to go forward with the ALAC and RALOs. ICANN has assigned a budget for this. There are new mailing lists, wikis and most importantly staff dedicated to bring this all together. I still believe something useful can come of out this.

I'm very encouraged by all the new efforts of ICANN. There is no doubt that by having more ALS's we have a greater potential. Whilst we have yet to see the outcomes - and we know that some ALS's will be more active than others - the momentum has picked up. We have lists (and many websites), we have a RALO and others close to establishment. I am the first to admit that I was not in favor of this model, but it is OUR opportunity to show that AL is a force. And we now need to work with what we have, if ICANN is pumping resources into this, we need to show them results. It's up to us to make sure that there are comments and inputs into the policy discussions. Not an easy job (I mean it's easy for us to comment, it's not so easy for us to ensure the ALS constituencies do).

May the force be with you!

Warm regards,

Alan

--------------------------------------------- Alan Levin Tel: +27 21 409-7997

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

_______________________________________________ LAC-ALS mailing list LAC-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-als_atlarge-lists.icann....

-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com

I agree with most of what Jacqueline has said. What would be really nice is to discuss the issues at hand, provide a brief/background for the new (and some not so new) ALSes who would perhaps be more confident in participating if they had some grasp of the actual issues. Assuming every ALS is aware of the issues at hand would be incorrect, and when discussions spiral into could haves and should haves, some people on this list probably switch off (which at times includes me). Whilst it is important to know the past to (perhaps) make the future better, let's work on the future itself, and not what cannot be changed in the past (unless Mr Wells can lend us a hand). Regards, Rajnesh Singh - Pacific Islands jam@jacquelinemorris.com wrote:

Hi

Not being aan ICANN historian, I can't say what happened in 2000, 2001, 2002 or 2003. What I can say is that in my part of the world (the Caribbean) - the Internet is a recent phenomenon. We're still working on access and education. We finally have a small core of people interested and willing to participate. A lot of the new ALSes are groups of individuals who are now getting into this previously "closed" club. It's unfair to blame them for years of non-comments when many of them have been ALSes for only 2 or 3 months. They also cannot be expected to comment on policies that we haven't educated them about.

What IMO would be more useful from the "old-timers" is posts to the list that explain the policy issues that need input from the groups that are now getting involved.

For example, a post that explains the issues surrounding whois and that starts a discussion about how they might affect individual users will certainly get responses. There should be posts that start discussion around the issues and then out of those discussions, positions and comments will arise.

And I agree with Alan here - this is the model that ICANN is putting resources towards. If we work to get people involved and show that the RALOs are interested and able, we show that individual users are valuable. And then the at large can push for greater power within ICANN. I think that demanding Board seats without having done anything to "earn" them in many years is putting the cart before the horse.

I disagree to some extent with Jeanette - I think it's more bottom-up to start from regional activity and move to global activity. (Not to mention much easier to do outreach and education)

So the challenge is - how to educate those who are interested but may not know about the policy processes and how do we get comments out of the regions and up to ICANN. After that - it's up to us again to make sure that ICANN takes the comments and inputs into consideration.

I'd love the conversation to stop looking backwards with anger and regret and look to the future that seems brighter (at least judging by the number of applications that have been coming in in the last year).

Please start being productive and helping the individual users get involved in the process that exists and that is being funded, instead of trying to change the entire process that a few dislike. According to the number of groups joining - not everyone hates it.

My 2 cents.

Jacqueline

Quoting Alan Levin <alan@futureperfect.co.za>:

...

Hi,

On 07 Feb 2007, at 11:05 PM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

...

Danny Younger said the following on 07/02/07 21:23:

...

We have been pursuing this experiment for four long years during which time the DNS policy-related contributions offered by the ALS organizations has been almost nil.

...

There seems to be a willingess from ICANN to go forward with the ALAC and RALOs. ICANN has assigned a budget for this. There are new mailing lists, wikis and most importantly staff dedicated to bring this all together. I still believe something useful can come of out this.

I'm very encouraged by all the new efforts of ICANN. There is no doubt that by having more ALS's we have a greater potential. Whilst we have yet to see the outcomes - and we know that some ALS's will be more active than others - the momentum has picked up. We have lists (and many websites), we have a RALO and others close to establishment. I am the first to admit that I was not in favor of this model, but it is OUR opportunity to show that AL is a force. And we now need to work with what we have, if ICANN is pumping resources into this, we need to show them results. It's up to us to make sure that there are comments and inputs into the policy discussions. Not an easy job (I mean it's easy for us to comment, it's not so easy for us to ensure the ALS constituencies do).

May the force be with you!

Warm regards,

Alan

Danny and Robert, I understand your ideas, and I really agree that quantity doesn´t guarantee quality. I also agree with Danny that the process has been a failure since 2002 and for a few years. But I´d had the opportunity to watch the new process in LAC, gathering a really important and quite representative number of organizations in the subject, and being related to indivual user´s interest, which is one of ALAC proposals, and wasnt happennig until now. Since then, at least in our region, it is growing a different way. Perhaps, the failure is not in the "What", but in the "How". The recomendations you are making reference allow me to think like this, and I It is early to critizise the RALO´s process, because only one RALO (LAC) has been properly consolidated two months ago, and the others are in the way. I think you would be surprised in a few months. Despite being a member of a non profit organization, and a researcher, I also work in the bussinnes world and I know the importance of efficiency, but I think we have to make some difference. When we are taking executive desitions, the procedures are not the same that if your goal has is to create consensus. Precisely, this process only would be able to grow with results if it is based in the idea of a powerfull and representative organization. Moreover, ICANN has being spending time and money since a long time, and now that we are close to get a result, I would be pointless to abandon the efforts. It´s been a pleasure to discuss ideas respectfully, Regards, Andrés

Dear Andres,

Thank you for your comments.

The ALAC was officially created in December 2002. We have been pursuing this experiment for four long years during which time the DNS policy-related contributions offered by the ALS organizations has been almost nil. By any set of metrics, that is an undeniable failure.

Within ICANN we have the ability to recognize and deal with failed efforts -- as an example, we have seen the earlier DNSO (widely regarded as dsyfunctional in the extreme) replaced by the GNSO.

I view the ALAC/RALO/ALS construct as a monumental failure that cannot be saved by the expenditure of additional funding or time.

Clearly, you don't share my point of view on this matter.

Let me ask you this: if you were a businessman that had to make a business decision based on the performance record to date, would you invest in this proposition in view of the return generated thus far? Probably not.

Most likely you would seek to restructure/reorganize or find a more suitable model. ICANN has already spent a great deal of time and money seeking a reasonable solution. They commissioned the At-Large Study to provide the Board with recommendations that could enjoy consensus support. This is what they recommended:

"The ALSC recommends the creation of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO) as vital to At-Large participation in ICANN. The existing ICANN structure has not fulfilled expectations of directly involving and representing individual Internet users and their interests.")

I don't want a powerless ALAC model that offers no hope of representation on the ICANN Board. I want our community to have the benefit of a Supporting Organization model that seats its members on the ICANN Board... I can't imagine that you would prefer to remain powerless and unrepresented?

regards, Danny

--- Andres Piazza <investigaciones@densi.com.ar> wrote:

...

Dear Danny,

First of all, I`d like to say that we share your concern about making real and effective contributions to Icann and specially to the areas that, as you said, require improvements. Despite this, I respectfully disagree with your opinions. The ALS process has a huge importance in the Internet Policy Development (and should be like this in every other political aspect). Moreover, the idea of Botton Up Consensus-Based Process is one of the strongers in ICANN, and also one of the main goals of ALAC: To provide the broad advice, and be related to the individual user´s interests.

The job of being instruments for the individuals users, to provide their empowerment, to lend they know, to poll them to get involved and commited first, and to do their contributions later on, is quite tough. I agree that, at this time, ALS didn´t offer the gratest recomendations, but it is a long path to travel and (at least in the LACRALO), I can see a great commitment in the ALS´s members, and also a remarkable job in the some areas. It s too early to disdain the potencial of the individual users to contribute, and it is also very easy for you. ICANN, and specially ALAC, believes strongly in the construction of consensus, and in the participative leadership (it is quite different that being a cheerleader!!). I think you should start doing it too.

Please, dont get me wrong, I´m aware that you are making a great job on your own, but I am convinced that your organization (your are the only member in it) would be stronger and make better contributions to ICANN if you nourish it with other participants. I have no intentions to start a polemic, but I was forced to interfere because all At Large Community is reading this mailing list, and I couldn´t lend someone to believe that ALS are not capable to contribute.

Kind Regards,

Andres Piazza

...

** Andres Piazza** Research Director * AGEIA DENSI**.*** ** ********investigaciones@densi.com.ar <mailto:andresp@ip6technology.com.ar>**

____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail

Hi Vittorio,

This new setup of global + regional mailing lists where messages flow in all directions, though a bit chaotic, seems to have prompted many more interventions by ALS representatives. I am actually wondering whether we should rather have one single global list to this effect, keeping regional lists only for strictly regional discussions.

Some people have suggested just that for a long time. A global entity is much more encouraging and empowering, at least as long as participation is low. Regional sub-divisions should grow out of a global group, not the other way around. jeanette

While working on the final stages of forming AP RALO, I tend to agree what Jeanette wrote below. Or, because I have been working on it, I see the chaleenges clearler. And I also agree with quality vs. quantity discussion, yes quality is important and quantity is not the answer. However, quantity was also seriously questioned - as to how much "representative" are thesee ALS - RALO - ALAC for global individual users? 95 is far from ideal, but still better number, I feel. Now that external evaluation on ALAC is to be started, it's a good time to come up with answers to these questions and I hope we find better one this time. A user SO is certainly a direction worth to consider. For that, ALAC has completed the "self-review" last year. It is available on ICANN wiki. I hope that will help our discourse to advance. best, izumi, still "interim" ALAC member 2007/2/8, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette@wz-berlin.de>:

Hi Vittorio,

...

This new setup of global + regional mailing lists where messages flow in all directions, though a bit chaotic, seems to have prompted many more interventions by ALS representatives. I am actually wondering whether we should rather have one single global list to this effect, keeping regional lists only for strictly regional discussions.

Some people have suggested just that for a long time. A global entity is much more encouraging and empowering, at least as long as participation is low. Regional sub-divisions should grow out of a global group, not the other way around.

jeanette

Re: "Maybe if a policy issue disucssion were started, we'd get this sort of participation now that we have so many more ALSes?" Jacqueline, Just speaking from my experience, having witnessed the formational efforts of the IDNO (Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency) and those of the icannatlarge group, I can tell you that most participants will choose to focus on administrative considerations rather than on policy matters. They would rather argue the merits of weighted voting moreso than discuss the lack of competitive choice offered under current Redemption Grace Period policy. They would rather pontificate on the topic of Internet Governance than deal with the hard issues associated with UDRP reform. They would rather debate the nuances of membership criteria and the relative fairness of proposed membership fee structures than discuss registrar circumvention of the Consensus Deletes Policy. They will spend years building an institution that devotes 100% of its time to administrative minutia and will forever continue to postpone policy discussions because they never seem to finish their higher priority organizational work... and then the institution collapses as little by little the players realize that nothing of consequence is getting done. I've seen it happen. Twice. and this will surely be round three if we remain on the same track. In the meantime, others within the GNSO are formulating policy (while the at-large remains excluded from this venue as well as from from the ICANN Board itself). There was a time when the country code managers realized that the construct that they were forced to work within (the DNSO) was not serving their needs. They left an unworkable model and created their own Supporting Organization... The construct that ICANN has forced upon the at-large clearly does not meet our needs. We too should vote with our feet and put together that which is right for us -- a Supporting Organization effort wherein policy issues can properly be debated. That model already exists and has worked reasonably well. We don't need to reinvent the wheel and get locked into administrative and process-related debates; further, we don't need to accept the flawed ALAC/RALO construct just because it is the only option on the table. We should be pursuing that which is right for us, a Supporting Organization that allows for Board-level representation, rather than blithely accepting what amounts to an incredibly lousy deal. We have gone from the promise of directors on half of the Board to no directors on the Board whatsoever. This is not acceptable. It will never be acceptable and I will never buy into a plan such as the ALAC/RALO/ALS diversion that makes permanent our disenfranchisement. best wishes, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

Re: (1) why are new orgnaisations joining the current flawed model Probably because no one within ICANN has made an effort to make it clear to these organizations that their natural home should be the NCUC. Re: (2) why haven't the many people who feel the current model is unworkable done what you suggest and vote with thier feet? They have voted. Over a thousand individuals joined icannatlarge instead of supporting the ALAC initiative. Further, within LAC 50 new organizations have been added to the NCUC roster within the last month (a check from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for $2500 to cover 50 applications was forwarded to Milton Mueller by Marcelo Fernandes Costa). Jacqueline, At issue is the very definition of at-large membership. ICANN's Membership Advisory Committee posed this question: 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 organizations that you are trying to turn into at-large units already have representation within ICANN via a Supporting Organization constituency established for that purpose. The real At-Large will always be those that are not otherwise represented. Your ALAC model is not aggregating individual at-large members, instead it is serving to do no more than to divert organizational resources away from the NCUC. This is not constructive -- it divides resources. It's a very bad mistake that hurts your peers. best wishes, Danny --- jam@jacquelinemorris.com wrote:

Hi Danny

I have questions - if the current model is flawed and many people consider it so, then why are new orgnaisations joining the current flawed model and why haven't the many people who feel the current model is unworkable done what you suggest and vote with thier feet? This isn't the first time I've heard about the SO initiative, but I haven't seen any movement forward on it, but I have seen a lot of activity in LAC (my region).

I've also seen a lot of desire in LAC for policy discussion. Maybe we should do an experiment - start a good policy discussion on a topic of interest, and see how much traffic we get, compared to admin issues. The LAC email listing hasn't been so big on admin issues, but more a lot of questions about issues and how we could find out more about them, and how they might affect us. The regional model allows us to interact and network as well, which is very valuable to us in LAC, I think.

Jacqueline

Quoting Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>:

...

Re:  "Maybe if a policy issue disucssion were started, we'd get this sort of participation now that we have so many more ALSes?"

Jacqueline,

Just speaking from my experience, having witnessed the formational efforts of the IDNO (Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency) and those of the icannatlarge group, I can tell you that most participants will choose to focus on administrative considerations rather than on policy matters.

They would rather argue the merits of weighted voting moreso than discuss the lack of competitive choice offered under current Redemption Grace Period policy. They would rather pontificate on the topic of Internet Governance than deal with the hard issues associated with UDRP reform.  They would rather debate the nuances of membership criteria and the relative fairness of proposed membership fee structures than discuss registrar circumvention of the Consensus Deletes Policy.

They will spend years building an institution that devotes 100% of its time to administrative minutia and will forever continue to postpone policy discussions because they never seem to finish their higher priority organizational work... and then the institution collapses as little by little the players realize that nothing of consequence is getting done. I've seen it happen. Twice. and this will surely be round three if we remain on the same track.

In the meantime, others within the GNSO are formulating policy (while the at-large remains excluded from this venue as well as from from the ICANN Board itself).

There was a time when the country code managers realized that the construct that they were forced to work within (the DNSO) was not serving their needs. They left an unworkable model and created their own Supporting Organization...

The construct that ICANN has forced upon the at-large clearly does not meet our needs.  We too should vote with our feet and put together that which is right for us -- a Supporting Organization effort wherein policy issues can properly be debated.  That model already exists and has worked reasonably well.  We don't need to reinvent the wheel and get locked into administrative and process-related debates; further, we don't need to accept the flawed ALAC/RALO construct just because it is the only option on the table.

We should be pursuing that which is right for us, a Supporting Organization that allows for Board-level representation, rather than blithely accepting what amounts to an incredibly lousy deal.

We have gone from the promise of directors on half of the Board to no directors on the Board whatsoever. This is not acceptable.  It will never be acceptable and I will never buy into a plan such as the ALAC/RALO/ALS diversion that makes permanent our disenfranchisement.

best wishes, Danny

____________________________________________________________________________________

...

Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.

http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

...

-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com

____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

Re: Pardon? Icannatlarge.com/org was started one year before the ALAC was conceived. Vittorio, I stand corrected... but I had forgotten your betrayal of the icannatlarge organization in pursuit of the folly that you and your At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) foisted upon us... thanks for the reminder. Your efforts to maintain the At-Large as an unrepresented community have not gone unnoticed. --- Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:

Danny Younger ha scritto:

...

Re: (2) why haven't the many people who feel the current model is unworkable done what you suggest and vote with thier feet?

They have voted. Over a thousand individuals joined icannatlarge instead of supporting the ALAC initiative.

When the ALAC was created, most icannatlarge members lost interest in it, and many of its key people (including me, who happened to be the Chairman at that time, and Esther Dyson, who had funded its creation) started to participate in the ALAC instead.

...

Further, within LAC 50 new organizations have been added to the NCUC roster within the last month (a check from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for $2500 to cover 50 applications was forwarded to Milton Mueller by Marcelo Fernandes Costa).

Wow. That's free, bottom-up, voluntary participation :) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com

Since I’m in the knowledge business, I know that knowing what you don’t know and having a notion of how to begin to know is very important. For those of us who would wish to make a meaningful contribution to Internet governance – which I believe we signal when we form, join and seek accreditation for an ALS - we will have to read A LOT. The ICANN announcements at www.icann.org/announcements are always THE place to start. The multistakeholder approach assumes and commends the ‘hive mind’ approach to policy development. It is the reason we develop these lists so that folks can see what other like-minded individuals are thinking on any issue; joining is VOLUNTARY. And crosstalk in this sense is actually of use. Nobody promised it would be orderly or even edifying in every way. This is why when I get more than one email on the same subject, I simply read and keep one and delete all others. This will suffice until we get our lists all smoothly integrated and whatnot. Yes, from observation it would appear that the administrative issues – yes, some of it really is administrivia! - dominate the conversations. But I submit this is entirely reasonable, given the maturity of the expansion of ICANN policy development framework in general and LACRALO in particular. Teething pains, I say. And this too shall pass. All in all, we work the game we have with the players that show up. Carlton [Spanish Version] Desde que estoy en el negocio del conocimiento, yo sé que instruido lo que usted no sabe y estar que inclinado a de cómo comenzar a saber es muy importante. Para los que desearía hacer una contribución significativa al gobierno del Internet – que creo que señalamos cuando formamos, unimos y buscamos la acreditación para un ALS - tendremos que leer MUCHO. Los anuncios de ICANN en www.icann.org/announcments son siempre el lugar de empezar. El enfoque de multistakeholder asume y encomienda el enfoque de la "mente de la colmena" al desarrollo de la política. Es la razón nosotros desarrollamos estas listas para que gente puedan ver lo que otros individuos afines piensan en cualquier asunto; la unión es VOLUNTARIA. Y la interferencia en este sentido es realmente de uso. Nadie prometió que estaría ordenado o edificando aún en todos los aspectos. De ahí que cuando consigo más de un correo electrónico en el mismo sujeto, yo leí simplemente y mantengo uno y borro todos otros. Esto será suficiente hasta que consigamos nuestras listas todo lisamente integrado y el juguetero. ¡Sí, de la observación aparecería que los asuntos administrativos – sí, algún de ello es realmente administrivia! - domina las conversaciones. Pero yo me someto esto es enteramente razonable, dada la madurez de la expansión de armazón de desarrollo de política de ICANN en general y LACRALO en el detalle. Endenteciendo los dolores, yo digo. Y este pasará también. Todo en total, nosotros trabajamos el juego que tenemos con los jugadores que aparecen. Carlton _____ From: lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of jam@jacquelinemorris.com Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:01 AM To: Danny Younger Cc: Jeanette@mercury.uwimona.edu.jm; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Hofmann Subject: Re: [LAC-ALS] [ALAC] [NA-ALS] [EURO-ALS] Major Milestone Coming Up Hi Danny I have questions - if the current model is flawed and many people consider it so, then why are new orgnaisations joining the current flawed model and why haven't the many people who feel the current model is unworkable done what you suggest and vote with thier feet? This isn't the first time I've heard about the SO initiative, but I haven't seen any movement forward on it, but I have seen a lot of activity in LAC (my region). I've also seen a lot of desire in LAC for policy discussion. Maybe we should do an experiment - start a good policy discussion on a topic of interest, and see how much traffic we get, compared to admin issues. The LAC email listing hasn't been so big on admin issues, but more a lot of questions about issues and how we could find out more about them, and how they might affect us. The regional model allows us to interact and network as well, which is very valuable to us in LAC, I think. Jacqueline Quoting Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>:

Re: "Maybe if a policy issue disucssion were started, we'd get this sort of participation now that we have so many more ALSes?"

Jacqueline,

Just speaking from my experience, having witnessed the formational efforts of the IDNO (Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency) and those of the icannatlarge group, I can tell you that most participants will choose to focus on administrative considerations rather than on policy matters.

They would rather argue the merits of weighted voting moreso than discuss the lack of competitive choice offered under current Redemption Grace Period policy. They would rather pontificate on the topic of Internet Governance than deal with the hard issues associated with UDRP reform. They would rather debate the nuances of membership criteria and the relative fairness of proposed membership fee structures than discuss registrar circumvention of the Consensus Deletes Policy.

They will spend years building an institution that devotes 100% of its time to administrative minutia and will forever continue to postpone policy discussions because they never seem to finish their higher priority organizational work... and then the institution collapses as little by little the players realize that nothing of consequence is getting done. I've seen it happen. Twice. and this will surely be round three if we remain on the same track.

In the meantime, others within the GNSO are formulating policy (while the at-large remains excluded from this venue as well as from from the ICANN Board itself).

There was a time when the country code managers realized that the construct that they were forced to work within (the DNSO) was not serving their needs. They left an unworkable model and created their own Supporting Organization...

The construct that ICANN has forced upon the at-large clearly does not meet our needs. We too should vote with our feet and put together that which is right for us -- a Supporting Organization effort wherein policy issues can properly be debated. That model already exists and has worked reasonably well. We don't need to reinvent the wheel and get locked into administrative and process-related debates; further, we don't need to accept the flawed ALAC/RALO construct just because it is the only option on the table.

We should be pursuing that which is right for us, a Supporting Organization that allows for Board-level representation, rather than blithely accepting what amounts to an incredibly lousy deal.

We have gone from the promise of directors on half of the Board to no directors on the Board whatsoever. This is not acceptable. It will never be acceptable and I will never buy into a plan such as the ALAC/RALO/ALS diversion that makes permanent our disenfranchisement.

best wishes, Danny

____________________________________________________________________________ ________

Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com

Roberto, Re: "Let's drop the discussion on whether yet another organizational model could be better and make this one work." Sorry, but in view of the fact that the long overdue ALAC review is soon scheduled to commence, it is highly appropriate that we begin to discuss structural improvements. The Accountability and Review section of the ICANN bylaws stipulate that: "The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness." Why should we strive to make a bad model work when better models are available (in particular models that would offer representational rights to the at-large community)? The entire point of the review procedure is to guage the performance and operation of this advisory committee with an eye toward significant modifications that would engender more substantive output. Now is the time to begin discussions on a better way forward so that cogent and well-considered thoughts may be presented to the independent entity that will conduct the review. regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:

Danny Younger wrote:

...

They will spend years building an institution that

devotes

...

100% of its time to administrative minutia and will forever continue to postpone policy discussions because they never seem to finish their higher priority organizational work... and then the institution collapses as little by little the players realize that nothing of consequence is getting done. I've seen it happen. Twice. and this will surely be round three if we remain on the same track.

I completely agree.

Let's stop arguing administrivia, and focus on policy issues.

Let's drop the discussion on whether yet another organizational model could be better and make this one work. Two issues were already circulating, before deviating again on organizational matters, and were the input for policy decisions to be taken on regions, and the whois. There are sure others, we probably need just to put a little bit of order in the discussion by setting priorities.

Personally, I think that it would be extremely beneficial for newcomers if we had a quick summary of the whois situation. Wendy has one, and is still doing, an excellent job in the WhoIs TF, and I hope that she could find the time to give this tutorial. Otherwise, we can rely on staff, or put together something collectively.

Regards, Roberto

____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

Dear Robert, I think you have the answer to the question you are posing. Assuming all 95 are responding to all statements that drop in our mailboxes. Will you be able to maintain the load? What happened to listening and why should everyone say something just for saying or presence sake? Are you not enjoying the few quality responses that are coming up? Paulyn -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: afri-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:afri-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Robert Guerra Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2007 21:17 An: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Betreff: Re: [Afri-ALS] [ALAC] Major Milestone Coming Up quantity or quality - that's the question.... With all the recent developments on and about groups joining and RALO's , I really don't notice an increase in the level of engaged discussion. Thus, the question should be how many of the 95 are in fact active and engaged. regards Robert On 7-Feb-07, at 12:48 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

Dear All:

We have today reached our 94th ALS application, receiving five applications in the last five days; we can expect to receive our 100th ALS application very soon.

Quite a milestone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see us hit 250 organisations this year.

-- Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org _______________________________________________ AFRI-ALS mailing list AFRI-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afri-als_atlarge-lists.icann .org

Neil Schwartzman ha scritto:

I should make note that we, like our American counterparts, did make submissions regarding WHOIS policy.

You can read all about them here: http://cauce.ca/node/20

While we are at it, I would mention that the GAC is developing its own position on Whois, with the aim of approving it at the next ICANN meeting in Lisbon. I'd assume that they're working on it right in these weeks, and given that any clear stance by the GAC pro or against privacy measures in Whois databases might make a difference, I'd suggest that the ALSes who are interested in the matter try to contact their national GAC representative (and/or the national privacy authority, if existing) and ask them what's going on, and whether they could provide an opinion, and try to ensure that their country stays on the right side of the debate in the GAC. I think that this could really help in supporting the pro-privacy positions that we have been trying to push through for years now at ICANN. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

Um, well, I know some of us have been warriors to the cause for more years than we know and for sure, progressing your issues might have been slow. But please don’t rule out the contributions that those of us who have just joined the fray can bring, even to your own pet causes. Sometimes just a little more weight – featherweight really - on the right side could make the difference. Who knows, there might just be a few good kernels in the chaff you perceive the ALS to be largely composed of. We should also be careful not to suggest that ICANN’s business is the preserve of only one set of folks. For that would show an abysmal ignorance of how the world is turning! Best regards, Carlton [Spanish Version] Pues, bien, sé que algunos de nosotros hemos sido guerreros a la causa durante más años que sabemos y seguramente, el progreso de sus asuntos quizás habían sido lentos. Pero por favor no excluye las contribuciones que los que acabamos de unir que el combate puede traer, aún a su propio animal favorito causan. A veces apenas un poco más peso – de poco peso realmente - en el lado correcto podría hacer la diferencia. Quién sabe, quizás haya apenas unos pocos meollos buenos en el hollejo usted percibe los ALS para ser compuestos en gran parte de. Debemos tener cuidado también no sugerir que ese negocio de ICANN es la conserva de sólo un conjunto de gente. ¡Para que mostraría una ignorancia atroz de cómo el mundo gira! Saludos cordiales, Carlton -----Original Message----- From: lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:17 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [LAC-ALS] [ALAC] Major Milestone Coming Up quantity or quality - that's the question.... With all the recent developments on and about groups joining and RALO's , I really don't notice an increase in the level of engaged discussion. Thus, the question should be how many of the 95 are in fact active and engaged. regards Robert On 7-Feb-07, at 12:48 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

Dear All:

We have today reached our 94th ALS application, receiving five

applications in the last five days; we can expect to receive our

100th ALS application very soon.

Quite a milestone. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see us hit 250

organisations this year.

--

Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart

PO Box 32160

London N4 2XY

United Kingdom

UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011

USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460

Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135

mobile: +44 (7774) 932798

Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com /

Skype: nashtonhart

Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

_______________________________________________

ALAC mailing list

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-

lists.icann.org

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org _______________________________________________ LAC-ALS mailing list LAC-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-als_atlarge-lists.icann. org