Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs
It would be good to map out the gaps in accountability that are currently present...
It would be a whole lot quicker to do the opposite, to attempt to identify the accountablity that currently exists. Relative to at large, it's hard to think of any. As an interim ALAC member, I tried to represent the positions that I thought would be relevant to the Internet users who aren't in any of ICANN's organized consituencies, but I was just guessing. The ALS/RALO scheme exists, but it only provides a trickle of accountability to the ALSes, and none to individual Internet users. One of the deep flaws I realized this setup has is that most if not all of the ALSes really belong in the NCUC, and as Danny Younger has often reminded us, there's no route for all of the "none of the above" users. Some RALOs have provision for unaffiliated users, but they tend to be treated as a sort-of-ALS which still marginalizes them. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
John L ha scritto:
The ALS/RALO scheme exists, but it only provides a trickle of accountability to the ALSes, and none to individual Internet users. One of the deep flaws I realized this setup has is that most if not all of the ALSes really belong in the NCUC, and as Danny Younger has often reminded us, there's no route for all of the "none of the above" users. Some RALOs have provision for unaffiliated users, but they tend to be treated as a sort-of-ALS which still marginalizes them.
I think that you have to distinguish between the level of informal consensus polling, and the level of formal representation. At the level of consensus polling, individuals are now allowed on this (global) list and on all regional lists. Whenever something is posted to these lists for discussion, I've not seen anyone giving different importance to a message because it comes from an accredited ALS rather than from an individual subscriber. On the other hand, the number both of organizations and of individuals that participate in these discussions is still limited, and this might be an issue, though I've learned with time that, if you take out the fascination created by endless debate on structures, global democracy etc, and start addressing ICANN policy issues, the number both of organizations and of individuals that are interested is even more limited. At the level of formal representation (and thus, consequently, of whatever decision has to be taken by the ALAC rather than by broader consensus), you are right, but still the intermediation of the ALSes (which are entities much more "countable" and "identifiable" than a global self-selected set of online identities who register on a website) seems to me the most practical idea that we've seen up to now to create a constituents base that can represent global users and their diverse views, have a broad footing, spend the time necessary to participate, and yet give way to formal and transparent processes for selecting representatives. My two cents of course! -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Re: more "countable" and "identifiable" Vittorio, You are being silly. Like many other individuals you have participated in the DNSO/GNSO General Assembly, a construct designed to aggregate individuals in a cross-constituency platform. These individuals are as countable and identifiable as any of the ALS organizations. Further, they usually identify an issue long before the ALAC ever wakes up to the fact that a problem even exists. --- Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
John L ha scritto:
The ALS/RALO scheme exists, but it only provides a trickle of accountability to the ALSes, and none to individual Internet users. One of the deep flaws I realized this setup has is that most if not all of the ALSes really belong in the NCUC, and as Danny Younger has often reminded us, there's no route for all of the "none of the above" users. Some RALOs have provision for unaffiliated users, but they tend to be treated as a sort-of-ALS which still marginalizes them.
I think that you have to distinguish between the level of informal consensus polling, and the level of formal representation.
At the level of consensus polling, individuals are now allowed on this (global) list and on all regional lists. Whenever something is posted to these lists for discussion, I've not seen anyone giving different importance to a message because it comes from an accredited ALS rather than from an individual subscriber. On the other hand, the number both of organizations and of individuals that participate in these discussions is still limited, and this might be an issue, though I've learned with time that, if you take out the fascination created by endless debate on structures, global democracy etc, and start addressing ICANN policy issues, the number both of organizations and of individuals that are interested is even more limited.
At the level of formal representation (and thus, consequently, of whatever decision has to be taken by the ALAC rather than by broader consensus), you are right, but still the intermediation of the ALSes (which are entities much more "countable" and "identifiable" than a global self-selected set of online identities who register on a website) seems to me the most practical idea that we've seen up to now to create a constituents base that can represent global users and their diverse views, have a broad footing, spend the time necessary to participate, and yet give way to formal and transparent processes for selecting representatives. My two cents of course! -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Danny Younger ha scritto:
Re: more "countable" and "identifiable"
Vittorio,
You are being silly. Like many other individuals you have participated in the DNSO/GNSO General Assembly, a construct designed to aggregate individuals in a cross-constituency platform. These individuals are as countable and identifiable as any of the ALS organizations.
Sure, and I'll be pleased to meet Dr. Baptista, Mr. Williams and other long term participants to the GA (is Mr. Walsh still active?). In any case, I think that the present GA, as a group of users, qualifies as an ALS and should join the At Large.
Further, they usually identify an issue long before the ALAC ever wakes up to the fact that a problem even exists.
Which is exactly why we have ALSes to provide us input on the problems they have at the local level, so I think that the contribution of the GA would be valuable. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Just for the sake of curiosity, into what local region would you put this global body? Or would you have it split itself up into regional subsets just to accomodate the whims of the ALAC? --- Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Danny Younger ha scritto:
Re: more "countable" and "identifiable"
Vittorio,
You are being silly. Like many other individuals you have participated in the DNSO/GNSO General Assembly, a construct designed to aggregate individuals in a cross-constituency platform. These individuals are as countable and identifiable as any of the ALS organizations.
Sure, and I'll be pleased to meet Dr. Baptista, Mr. Williams and other long term participants to the GA (is Mr. Walsh still active?). In any case, I think that the present GA, as a group of users, qualifies as an ALS and should join the At Large.
Further, they usually identify an issue long before the ALAC ever wakes up to the fact that a problem even exists.
Which is exactly why we have ALSes to provide us input on the problems they have at the local level, so I think that the contribution of the GA would be valuable. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Danny Younger wrote:
Just for the sake of curiosity, into what local region would you put this global body? Or would you have it split itself up into regional subsets just to accomodate the whims of the ALAC?
We had this discussion already, and I can only repeat what I wrote you then. There is quite a flexibility: my suggestion was either the region where the majority of the members reside, or the region where the secretariat reside. WHich is, if I am not mistaken, respectively NA and EU. Incidentally, may I also observe that the global body has elected officials: Chairman - Hugh Dierker (NA) Vice-Chairman - Sotiris Sotiropulos (NA) List Monitor - Joe Baptista (NA) So, I would have little doubt on where this global body could elect his residence. Cheers, Roberto
--- Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Danny Younger ha scritto:
Re: more "countable" and "identifiable"
Vittorio,
You are being silly. Like many other individuals you have participated in the DNSO/GNSO General Assembly, a construct designed to aggregate individuals in a cross-constituency platform. These individuals are as countable and identifiable as any of the ALS organizations.
Sure, and I'll be pleased to meet Dr. Baptista, Mr. Williams and other long term participants to the GA (is Mr. Walsh still active?). In any case, I think that the present GA, as a group of users, qualifies as an ALS and should join the At Large.
Further, they usually identify an issue long before the ALAC ever wakes up to the fact that a problem even exists.
Which is exactly why we have ALSes to provide us input on the problems they have at the local level, so I think that the contribution of the GA would be valuable. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
Danny Younger -
John L -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vittorio Bertola