Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Frankly, Wendy, I didn't like the way the rest of the ALSs were shut out of the decision making process for the Vancouver meeting. It was vetoed by very few people when the rest seemed to want it. At least this time around it is going by group concensus rather than the GROUP being shut out of the process. Much better in my mind and much more transparency.
Perhaps you weren't on the discussion list when it was discussed and consensused down, but we tried to work transparently. I'd love to have your input on policy discussions on the ALAC list, too! How about WHOIS privacy issues? --Wendy
From what I can see, ICANN has been working very hard to get things happening despite certain ones trying there best to hold others back. ICANN even sent their Ohmbudsman to the Vancouver meeting. It was interesting at the Vancouver meeting that not one of the "old guard" ALSs, with the exception of Michael Miranda, even bothered to take part by distance. Frankly I think that this shows a dismal lack of regard to the new and emerging ALSs that a face to face meeting could change.
Thank you, ICANN, for your continuing financial support for these efforts.
Darlene
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 975-5605 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-- 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 wish to support Wendy's call for a return to policy discussions on this list, and in light of her query regarding the WHOIS debate let me remind the list members of the formation of the GNSO WHOIS Working Group: As per the GNSO resolution in Lisbon, a WHOIS Working Group is being formed with a 120-day timeline. All may participate. The Charter for the WHOIS Working Group may be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html The membership of this WG extends to the following: Nominating Committee appointed GNSO councilors GNSO constituency members In addition, observers and liaisons may join the working group on the following basis: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings. Observers must provide their real name, organization (if associated with an organization) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members. The email address of the GNSO Secretariat is GNSO.SECRETARIAT[at]GNSO.ICANN.ORG I look forward to seeing some of you engaged in the policy development process. Please be aware that the NCUC has challenged the language of the proposed charter: In considering this WG charter April 12, NCUC moves to amend it as follows: Under section 4b, Change the sentence "Determine how third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query-based access for legitimate activities." to... Determine which third parties, under which conditions, may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query-based access." Also, strike the 8 paragraphs beginning "The GAC policy principles...." Reason: The opening sentence of 4b reads as if ANY third party will be given access to the data for any activity. But this begs the policy question that the WG must answer, which is WHICH third parties (e.g., just law enforcement agencies, or others) and under WHAT CONDITIONS. As for the second change, having discussed this with GAC members, the objections of the EU to the language was resolved by stating that some of the ACTIVITIES that Whois data was used for was legitimate, but this did not necessarily mean that ACCESS TO THE PRIVATE DATA was also legitimate. Also, the Whois task force has already determined that the purpose of Whois does not include many of these activities, so there is no obligation on ICANN to make the data available for those activities. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03389.html --- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Frankly, Wendy, I didn't like the way the rest of the ALSs were shut out of the decision making process for the Vancouver meeting. It was vetoed by very few people when the rest seemed to want it. At least this time around it is going by group concensus rather than the GROUP being shut out of the process. Much better in my mind and much more transparency.
Perhaps you weren't on the discussion list when it was discussed and consensused down, but we tried to work transparently.
I'd love to have your input on policy discussions on the ALAC list, too! How about WHOIS privacy issues?
--Wendy
From what I can see, ICANN has been working very
hard to get things
happening despite certain ones trying there best to hold others back. ICANN even sent their Ohmbudsman to the Vancouver meeting. It was interesting at the Vancouver meeting that not one of the "old guard" ALSs, with the exception of Michael Miranda, even bothered to take part by distance. Frankly I think that this shows a dismal lack of regard to the new and emerging ALSs that a face to face meeting could change.
Thank you, ICANN, for your continuing financial support for these efforts.
Darlene
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 975-5605 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-- 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
Re-titled so that others may find this message in overflowing mailboxes: The GNSO is chartering another working group on WHOIS and the privacy issues implicated by its publicly available database of domain name registrants' identifying information (name, address, email, and telephone number). The previous working group proposed permitting registrants to replace this personal information with an "Operational Point of Contact," who could accept notices and pass them along to the registrant. The new working group is tasked with determining operational details of that plan, among other things. The working group is open to anyone, and since it is chartered to work by consensus rather than vote, individuals may actually have meaningful opportunity to shape the discussion here. Please, join us! More info at <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html> and pasted below. Please email Maria Farrell (maria.farrell at icann.org) or the GNSO Secretariat (GNSO.SECRETARIAT[at]GNSO.ICANN.ORG) if you would like to join the working group. --Wendy As per the GNSO resolution in Lisbon, a WHOIS Working Group is being formed with a 120-day timeline. All may participate. The Charter for the WHOIS Working Group may be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html 1 Introduction The GNSO Council voted on 28 March, 2007 to create a Whois Working Group with a broad, balanced and representative membership to take the output of the WHOIS task force and carry out further work to address concerns raised by the community and seek to reach greater consensus around improvements to the WHOIS service that achieve a balance between providing contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Register Name, and the need to take reasonable precautions to protect the data about any identified or identifiable natural person from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction. 2 Background Whois ICANN’s agreements with gTLD registrars and gTLD registries require them to provide data concerning active Registered Names via three mechanisms: port-43 WHOIS, an interactive web page (often called WHOIS service), and third-party bulk access. The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) spells out which data is collected and which data is made available. The data includes contact information of natural persons that includes names, postal addresses, email addresses, fax and voice telephone numbers. Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) The GNSO is approaching the end of a PDP on Whois that should fulfill terms of reference agreed in June 2005. The terms of reference of the PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html) are to make policy recommendations to the Board on: 1.The purpose of the Whois service 2.The purpose of the Whois contacts (ie Registered Name Holder, technical contact, and administrative contact) and the purpose for which the data is collected. 3.Which data should be available for public access, and determine how to access data that is not available for public access. 4.How to improve the process for notifying a registrar of inaccurate data, and how to improve the process for correcting inaccurate data. 5.How to deal with any conflicts between the requirements of ICANN agreements, and local or national privacy laws Regarding term of reference #5, a Policy on conflicts between Whois requirements and local or national privacy laws was developed by the GNSO and approved by the Board on 10 May 2006. A draft Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law has been published on the ICANN website at (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm). The Final Task Force Report on Whois Services was submitted to the GNSO Council on 12 March, 2007. The Task Force Report and Staff Discussion Points on Potential Implementation Issues are available at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar07.htm. The GNSO Council met to consider the WHOIS task force report on Saturday 25 March 2007, and also met with the Government Advisory Committee. Various concerns were raised regarding some of the recommendations in the report, and subsequently the GNSO Council met on Wednesday 28 March and decided to form a working group to attempt to resolve some of the issues raised. 3 Objective The objective of the WG is to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies recommendations may be improved to address these issues. 4 Work Plan 4a Define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the contacts available for unrestricted public query-based access, and what happens if the responsibilities are not fulfilled. 4b. Determine how third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query-based access for legitimate activities. The GAC Policy Principles on gTLD Whois Services (dated 28 March 07) sets out a list of legitimate (subject to applicable national law) activities, including: 1. Supporting the security and stability of the Internet by providing contact points for network operators and administrators, including ISPs, and certified computer incident response teams; 2. Allowing users to determine the availability of domain names; 3. Assisting law enforcement authorities in investigations, in enforcing national and international laws, including, for example, countering terrorism-related criminal offences and in supporting international cooperation procedures. In some countries, specialized non governmental entities may be involved in this work; 4. Assisting in combating against abusive uses of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as illegal and other acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, hatred, violence, all forms of child abuse, including paedophilia and child pornography, and trafficking in, and exploitation of, human beings. 5. Facilitating enquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark clearances and to help counter intellectual property infringement, misuse and theft in accordance with applicable national laws and international treaties; 6. Contributing to user confidence in the Internet as a reliable and efficient means of information and communication and as an important tool for promoting digital inclusion, e-commerce and other legitimate uses by helping users identify persons or entities responsible for content and services online; and 7. Assisting businesses, other organizations and users in combating fraud, complying with relevant laws, and safeguarding the interests of the public. 4c Determine whether and how a distinction could be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name (for example, commercial versus non-commercial use).. The membership of this WG extends to the following: • Nominating Committee appointed GNSO councilors • GNSO constituency members In addition, observers and liaisons may join the working group on the following basis: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings. Observers must provide their real name, organization (if associated with an organization) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members. The email address of the GNSO Secretariat is GNSO.SECRETARIAT[at]GNSO.ICANN.ORG -- 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/
There has been some discussion about the possibility of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2... With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it necessary to ask the question: "In the last four and a half years has any regionally-specific issue emerged that would actually justify the creation of the Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?" I haven't seen any such issue, have you? Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets. I continue to have problems with the concept of following a bad model for the At-Large just because a bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us no other options. An even worse idea is trying to finalize arrangements for a North American RALO at a time when many are questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing purpose. In my view, we should be pressing instead for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large community that seats its members onto the ICANN Board. This was a plan originally proposed by ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO). Anything less than this distracts from the goal of achieving representation. All of us have a large number of ways by which we may "participate" already such as having our organizations write directly to the ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the Non Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. We really don't need a regional construct just to achieve participation. Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that puts our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than on models that continue to deny us the representation that is our right. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
Danny You could consider that the RALO structure may be adjusted to allow the At Large to nominate representatives to the Board - this was mentioned in the Lisbon meeting as a possibility. It might be a recommendation from the External review- who knows? Yet again, LAC (I know as I am a member) and quite a few of the other regions (from conversations with them) see value in the RALOs. Did you spend some time talking to other regions, and even some members in your own NA region to get their feedback as to what they find interesting and useful about the RALOS rather than insist that all of us are wrong and foolish and your way is the ONLY correct way? I saw a message from Darlene on the list that seemed to imply that her organization found the RALO useful. Have you spoken to people of like mind to see why? If you don't find it useful, and you prefer other pathways to participate in ICANN processes, that's fine. But if others want to work within this structure, let them go ahead. Not everyone in the world thinks like you do, and the rest of us have as much right to choose our pathway to participation. You've mentioned writing directly to the ICANN Board, or joining the NonCommercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the General Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. So that's a lot of different ways for participation. Add the RALOs as one more, one that many people are finding useful. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO There has been some discussion about the possibility of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2 /000588.html With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it necessary to ask the question: "In the last four and a half years has any regionally-specific issue emerged that would actually justify the creation of the Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?" I haven't seen any such issue, have you? Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets. I continue to have problems with the concept of following a bad model for the At-Large just because a bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us no other options. An even worse idea is trying to finalize arrangements for a North American RALO at a time when many are questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing purpose. In my view, we should be pressing instead for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large community that seats its members onto the ICANN Board. This was a plan originally proposed by ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO). Anything less than this distracts from the goal of achieving representation. All of us have a large number of ways by which we may "participate" already such as having our organizations write directly to the ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the Non Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. We really don't need a regional construct just to achieve participation. Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that puts our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than on models that continue to deny us the representation that is our right. ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Jacqueline, I can remember when we had elected at-large directors. I am one of those that remains willing to fight for what is right -- the return of the representation that has been denied to us. The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited they want to help out in any way that they can. Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control over a budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which their input has been ignored over and over again. You are a Chair of a body that purportedly has the best interest of the At-Large at heart, yet you doggedly refuse to stand up and fight for the representation that has been taken away from our community. You should be ashamed. One shouldn't cower in a corner and let others (like a Review Committee) point out the proper path for your community. This is about self-empowerment and deciding for yourself which is the best way forward. There was a time when ccTLD managers were part of the DNSO. They left that organization to start their own Supporting Organization. They had the guts to do what was best for them. This conversation is all about asking the important questions, such as: why should we accept a structure (ALAC/RALO) that institutionalizes a permanent disenfranchisement of our rights? Without your right to board-level representation you have nothing in the realpolitik world of ICANN. --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Danny You could consider that the RALO structure may be adjusted to allow the At Large to nominate representatives to the Board - this was mentioned in the Lisbon meeting as a possibility. It might be a recommendation from the External review- who knows?
Yet again, LAC (I know as I am a member) and quite a few of the other regions (from conversations with them) see value in the RALOs. Did you spend some time talking to other regions, and even some members in your own NA region to get their feedback as to what they find interesting and useful about the RALOS rather than insist that all of us are wrong and foolish and your way is the ONLY correct way? I saw a message from Darlene on the list that seemed to imply that her organization found the RALO useful. Have you spoken to people of like mind to see why?
If you don't find it useful, and you prefer other pathways to participate in ICANN processes, that's fine. But if others want to work within this structure, let them go ahead. Not everyone in the world thinks like you do, and the rest of us have as much right to choose our pathway to participation. You've mentioned writing directly to the ICANN Board, or joining the NonCommercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the General Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. So that's a lot of different ways for participation. Add the RALOs as one more, one that many people are finding useful.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO
There has been some discussion about the possibility of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2
/000588.html
With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it necessary to ask the question: "In the last four and a half years has any regionally-specific issue emerged that would actually justify the creation of the Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?"
I haven't seen any such issue, have you?
Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets.
I continue to have problems with the concept of following a bad model for the At-Large just because a bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us no other options.
An even worse idea is trying to finalize arrangements for a North American RALO at a time when many are questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing purpose.
In my view, we should be pressing instead for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large community that seats its members onto the ICANN Board. This was a plan originally proposed by ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO).
Anything less than this distracts from the goal of achieving representation. All of us have a large number of ways by which we may "participate" already such as having our organizations write directly to the ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the Non Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. We really don't need a regional construct just to achieve participation.
Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that puts our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than on models that continue to deny us the representation that is our right.
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ 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
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
The "global" elections way back when didn't include 1.3 million Trinidad and Tobago people, and it didn't represent me. The LACRALO represents me. My people's voices are raised in it, and listened to in it. I think that the more representative of the global population ALAC gets, with more and more people having a say via their regions, the more likely the At-Large is to have more say on the global IG stage (not just ICANN). I have a different view to yours because I believe that there are many people who would remain disenfranchised by such an approach. How would the telecentres and community groups in the rural areas of Trinidad and Tobago and other developing nations be able to participate? Now, the RALO includes ALSes that go out to those areas, talk to them and bring back their concerns, issues and views. ICANN's RALO structure has reached out to us, in a way that nothing else ever did, except the WSIS. So, yes, I am willing to work with this structure, and I will continue to focus on getting full global participation in the IG structures, including ICANN. I can see us having influence via this mechanism. I haven't seen ANY suggestion coming from you that focuses on allowing the other millions and millions and millions of Internet users who do not live in the developed world to participate on any sort of equal basis with the Internet elite who have been involved since the year dot. Talking about second-class status - we didn't have any status under the previous systems. Second class is a step up, and the next step will take us to first class. The review is an opportunity, not something that requires us to sit passively by and allow others to determine our path. It's an opportunity for the At Large to look at the years past, and the future - to decide where we want to go, who we want to represent and in what way. Sometimes it seems to me as if some people just want to roll back the clock to the days when all of this was a small and closed club, with people who all thought alike. Well, it isn't that anymore. It's diverse, (and hopefully rapidly getting more and more diverse) and we have different cultures and different views and different ways of doing things. And we will think differently. And all of those different views require respect. I try to understand and work with cultures that are different to mine. I may not always succeed, but I try. I don't see that consideration and respect coming from all of us in the At Large as yet. I hope it comes soon, otherwise we will definitely have problems moving ahead to what seems to be a similar final goal. And that would be a great pity. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:47 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; 'Wendy Seltzer'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO Hi Jacqueline, I can remember when we had elected at-large directors. I am one of those that remains willing to fight for what is right -- the return of the representation that has been denied to us. The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited they want to help out in any way that they can. Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control over a budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which their input has been ignored over and over again. You are a Chair of a body that purportedly has the best interest of the At-Large at heart, yet you doggedly refuse to stand up and fight for the representation that has been taken away from our community. You should be ashamed. One shouldn't cower in a corner and let others (like a Review Committee) point out the proper path for your community. This is about self-empowerment and deciding for yourself which is the best way forward. There was a time when ccTLD managers were part of the DNSO. They left that organization to start their own Supporting Organization. They had the guts to do what was best for them. This conversation is all about asking the important questions, such as: why should we accept a structure (ALAC/RALO) that institutionalizes a permanent disenfranchisement of our rights? Without your right to board-level representation you have nothing in the realpolitik world of ICANN. --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Danny You could consider that the RALO structure may be adjusted to allow the At Large to nominate representatives to the Board - this was mentioned in the Lisbon meeting as a possibility. It might be a recommendation from the External review- who knows?
Yet again, LAC (I know as I am a member) and quite a few of the other regions (from conversations with them) see value in the RALOs. Did you spend some time talking to other regions, and even some members in your own NA region to get their feedback as to what they find interesting and useful about the RALOS rather than insist that all of us are wrong and foolish and your way is the ONLY correct way? I saw a message from Darlene on the list that seemed to imply that her organization found the RALO useful. Have you spoken to people of like mind to see why?
If you don't find it useful, and you prefer other pathways to participate in ICANN processes, that's fine. But if others want to work within this structure, let them go ahead. Not everyone in the world thinks like you do, and the rest of us have as much right to choose our pathway to participation. You've mentioned writing directly to the ICANN Board, or joining the NonCommercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the General Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. So that's a lot of different ways for participation. Add the RALOs as one more, one that many people are finding useful.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO
There has been some discussion about the possibility of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2
/000588.html
With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it necessary to ask the question: "In the last four and a half years has any regionally-specific issue emerged that would actually justify the creation of the Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?"
I haven't seen any such issue, have you?
Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets.
I continue to have problems with the concept of following a bad model for the At-Large just because a bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us no other options.
An even worse idea is trying to finalize arrangements for a North American RALO at a time when many are questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing purpose.
In my view, we should be pressing instead for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large community that seats its members onto the ICANN Board. This was a plan originally proposed by ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO).
Anything less than this distracts from the goal of achieving representation. All of us have a large number of ways by which we may "participate" already such as having our organizations write directly to the ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the Non Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. We really don't need a regional construct just to achieve participation.
Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that puts our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than on models that continue to deny us the representation that is our right.
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ 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
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html -- 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
Re: The "global" elections way back when didn't include 1.3 million Trinidad and Tobago people, and it didn't represent me. The LACRALO represents me. When Ivan Moura Campos was elected by the Latin America and Caribbean region in the year 2000, the people of Trinidad/Tobago had a representative for their Region sitting on the ICANN Board. Now you have no representation on the Board whatsoever and yet you blithely choose to believe that the LACRALO "represents" you. The LACRALO only represents you to an Advisory Committee that has no power at all. If you wish to take comfort in your powerlessness just because there is now a modicum of outreach to your community, then go ahead and be comforted. But don't expect the rest of us that still respect the White Paper principles to agree to a Board that isn't properly balanced with at-large directors seated on half of that body. Your model of "participation" instead of "representation" has been roundly rejected by almost all North American Civil Society organizations that won't lend their good names to a fraudulent effort. You don't see CDT, or EFF, or EPIC joining your charade... they still have principles. --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
The "global" elections way back when didn't include 1.3 million Trinidad and Tobago people, and it didn't represent me. The LACRALO represents me. My people's voices are raised in it, and listened to in it. I think that the more representative of the global population ALAC gets, with more and more people having a say via their regions, the more likely the At-Large is to have more say on the global IG stage (not just ICANN).
I have a different view to yours because I believe that there are many people who would remain disenfranchised by such an approach. How would the telecentres and community groups in the rural areas of Trinidad and Tobago and other developing nations be able to participate? Now, the RALO includes ALSes that go out to those areas, talk to them and bring back their concerns, issues and views. ICANN's RALO structure has reached out to us, in a way that nothing else ever did, except the WSIS.
So, yes, I am willing to work with this structure, and I will continue to focus on getting full global participation in the IG structures, including ICANN. I can see us having influence via this mechanism. I haven't seen ANY suggestion coming from you that focuses on allowing the other millions and millions and millions of Internet users who do not live in the developed world to participate on any sort of equal basis with the Internet elite who have been involved since the year dot. Talking about second-class status - we didn't have any status under the previous systems. Second class is a step up, and the next step will take us to first class. The review is an opportunity, not something that requires us to sit passively by and allow others to determine our path. It's an opportunity for the At Large to look at the years past, and the future - to decide where we want to go, who we want to represent and in what way.
Sometimes it seems to me as if some people just want to roll back the clock to the days when all of this was a small and closed club, with people who all thought alike. Well, it isn't that anymore. It's diverse, (and hopefully rapidly getting more and more diverse) and we have different cultures and different views and different ways of doing things. And we will think differently. And all of those different views require respect. I try to understand and work with cultures that are different to mine. I may not always succeed, but I try. I don't see that consideration and respect coming from all of us in the At Large as yet. I hope it comes soon, otherwise we will definitely have problems moving ahead to what seems to be a similar final goal.
And that would be a great pity.
Jacqueline
____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
Danny Younger wrote:
Re: The "global" elections way back when didn't include 1.3 million Trinidad and Tobago people, and it didn't represent me. The LACRALO represents me.
When Ivan Moura Campos was elected by the Latin America and Caribbean region in the year 2000, the people of Trinidad/Tobago had a representative for their Region sitting on the ICANN Board. Now you have no representation on the Board whatsoever and yet you blithely choose to believe that the LACRALO "represents" you.
As I have said already many times, this obsession with voting and direct representation, without any analysis of what are the results of it, is not uncommon in North America, but not supported in most of the rest of the world. I have no doubt that somebody might think that the internet users in the villages in south-east Asia, to make an example, were absolutely excited years ago to be represented by Katoh-san (incidentally, an excellent Director). But what do "they" think? As for my European representative at the time, I have sent two messages to my elected representative on the Board, and got zero replies. I am sure that I should have been excited by the power that I had as an internet user with an elected representative on the Board. I don't know why, but I was not. You mantion Ivan. He was elected representative of LAC. When the terms of the elected directors expired, he was appointed again, with a different mechanism. Can somebody explain to me why the very same person, that was the angel of the providence in his term, became the unrepresentative devil in the second term?
The LACRALO only represents you to an Advisory Committee that has no power at all.
If you wish to take comfort in your powerlessness just because there is now a modicum of outreach to your community, then go ahead and be comforted. But don't expect the rest of us that still respect the White Paper principles to agree to a Board that isn't properly balanced with at-large directors seated on half of that body.
"the rest of us" is who, exactly? And since we are at it, what exactly has been done in the interest of the individual internet users worldwide during the golden years in which there were AtLarge Directors on the Board? And by which mechanism the individual internet users worldwide were able to present issues, develop policy documents, express opinions (like the ones that ALAC has developed and presented to the Board via a powerless liaison)?
Your model of "participation" instead of "representation" has been roundly rejected by almost all North American Civil Society organizations that won't lend their good names to a fraudulent effort.
Thank you for confirming that this is a North American attitude (at most). I understand that, since you have a preference for the old model, you oppose the creation of a RALO in your region. Fair enough. What I don't understand (actually, this is a figure of speech, because I think I do understand it very well) is why you want to eliminate the RALOs that are starting to function in the other regions.
You don't see CDT, or EFF, or EPIC joining your charade... they still have principles.
The ~100 principleless ALSes that have joined will probably appreciate your remarks. Incidentally, didn't you apply as well as ALS some time ago? Anyway, I will be glad to check the situation with you in two years. Regards, Roberto <as I am not subscribed, this message will never get to the NA-DISCUSS list, sorry>
A lot of historic info about the At Large elections here <http://www.naisproject.org/> (5 regional elections, one was OK, 3 were abused one way or another, 1 had an extremely low turnout.) Not worth re-hashing, but anyone who wasn't involved may find the information from the nais project useful (disclaimer, I was a member of the group. Izumi Aizu, AP region recently elected member of ALAC also a member.) Worth remembering that while anyone interested had the right to vote in the election, once their vote was cast that was it. No means for them to communicate with the candidates, no way for those voters to influence or get involved in policy. It was vote and then nothing. The ALAC structure attempts to build participation into the process. Gives users (hopefully) a role in policy development and implementation, but at the moment no direct role in selecting leadership positions (NomCom introduced to do that -- and *we need help* finding candidates! <http://nomcom.icann.org>). Which is why the possibility of ALAC being able to again directly select board members (and perhaps members of the other supporting organizations) is such an important reason for trying to make the RALO structure work (in my opinion). Adam
Danny Younger wrote:
Re: The "global" elections way back when didn't include 1.3 million Trinidad and Tobago people, and it didn't represent me. The LACRALO represents me.
When Ivan Moura Campos was elected by the Latin America and Caribbean region in the year 2000, the people of Trinidad/Tobago had a representative for their Region sitting on the ICANN Board. Now you have no representation on the Board whatsoever and yet you blithely choose to believe that the LACRALO "represents" you.
As I have said already many times, this obsession with voting and direct representation, without any analysis of what are the results of it, is not uncommon in North America, but not supported in most of the rest of the world. I have no doubt that somebody might think that the internet users in the villages in south-east Asia, to make an example, were absolutely excited years ago to be represented by Katoh-san (incidentally, an excellent Director). But what do "they" think? As for my European representative at the time, I have sent two messages to my elected representative on the Board, and got zero replies. I am sure that I should have been excited by the power that I had as an internet user with an elected representative on the Board. I don't know why, but I was not. You mantion Ivan. He was elected representative of LAC. When the terms of the elected directors expired, he was appointed again, with a different mechanism. Can somebody explain to me why the very same person, that was the angel of the providence in his term, became the unrepresentative devil in the second term?
The LACRALO only represents you to an Advisory Committee that has no power at all.
If you wish to take comfort in your powerlessness just because there is now a modicum of outreach to your community, then go ahead and be comforted. But don't expect the rest of us that still respect the White Paper principles to agree to a Board that isn't properly balanced with at-large directors seated on half of that body.
"the rest of us" is who, exactly? And since we are at it, what exactly has been done in the interest of the individual internet users worldwide during the golden years in which there were AtLarge Directors on the Board? And by which mechanism the individual internet users worldwide were able to present issues, develop policy documents, express opinions (like the ones that ALAC has developed and presented to the Board via a powerless liaison)?
Your model of "participation" instead of "representation" has been roundly rejected by almost all North American Civil Society organizations that won't lend their good names to a fraudulent effort.
Thank you for confirming that this is a North American attitude (at most). I understand that, since you have a preference for the old model, you oppose the creation of a RALO in your region. Fair enough. What I don't understand (actually, this is a figure of speech, because I think I do understand it very well) is why you want to eliminate the RALOs that are starting to function in the other regions.
You don't see CDT, or EFF, or EPIC joining your charade... they still have principles.
The ~100 principleless ALSes that have joined will probably appreciate your remarks. Incidentally, didn't you apply as well as ALS some time ago?
Anyway, I will be glad to check the situation with you in two years.
Regards, Roberto
<as I am not subscribed, this message will never get to the NA-DISCUSS list, sorry>
_______________________________________________ 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
I didn't want to prolong this, but curiosity got the better of me... I promise to let it go after this... How did these rights get taken away? By whom? How did all these At Large advocates, with direct representation on the Board, lose their franchise? What did the directly elected Board members do to stop it? Is there an objective analysis of the failure anywhere with lessons learnt so that we may not repeat the mistakes? Besides - if these rights were taken away so long ago and you've been fighting for them to be returned for so long and haven't had any success, maybe it's time to change tactics? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:06 PM To: 'Danny Younger'; 'Wendy Seltzer'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO The "global" elections way back when didn't include 1.3 million Trinidad and Tobago people, and it didn't represent me. The LACRALO represents me. My people's voices are raised in it, and listened to in it. I think that the more representative of the global population ALAC gets, with more and more people having a say via their regions, the more likely the At-Large is to have more say on the global IG stage (not just ICANN). I have a different view to yours because I believe that there are many people who would remain disenfranchised by such an approach. How would the telecentres and community groups in the rural areas of Trinidad and Tobago and other developing nations be able to participate? Now, the RALO includes ALSes that go out to those areas, talk to them and bring back their concerns, issues and views. ICANN's RALO structure has reached out to us, in a way that nothing else ever did, except the WSIS. So, yes, I am willing to work with this structure, and I will continue to focus on getting full global participation in the IG structures, including ICANN. I can see us having influence via this mechanism. I haven't seen ANY suggestion coming from you that focuses on allowing the other millions and millions and millions of Internet users who do not live in the developed world to participate on any sort of equal basis with the Internet elite who have been involved since the year dot. Talking about second-class status - we didn't have any status under the previous systems. Second class is a step up, and the next step will take us to first class. The review is an opportunity, not something that requires us to sit passively by and allow others to determine our path. It's an opportunity for the At Large to look at the years past, and the future - to decide where we want to go, who we want to represent and in what way. Sometimes it seems to me as if some people just want to roll back the clock to the days when all of this was a small and closed club, with people who all thought alike. Well, it isn't that anymore. It's diverse, (and hopefully rapidly getting more and more diverse) and we have different cultures and different views and different ways of doing things. And we will think differently. And all of those different views require respect. I try to understand and work with cultures that are different to mine. I may not always succeed, but I try. I don't see that consideration and respect coming from all of us in the At Large as yet. I hope it comes soon, otherwise we will definitely have problems moving ahead to what seems to be a similar final goal. And that would be a great pity. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:47 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; 'Wendy Seltzer'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO Hi Jacqueline, I can remember when we had elected at-large directors. I am one of those that remains willing to fight for what is right -- the return of the representation that has been denied to us. The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited they want to help out in any way that they can. Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control over a budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which their input has been ignored over and over again. You are a Chair of a body that purportedly has the best interest of the At-Large at heart, yet you doggedly refuse to stand up and fight for the representation that has been taken away from our community. You should be ashamed. One shouldn't cower in a corner and let others (like a Review Committee) point out the proper path for your community. This is about self-empowerment and deciding for yourself which is the best way forward. There was a time when ccTLD managers were part of the DNSO. They left that organization to start their own Supporting Organization. They had the guts to do what was best for them. This conversation is all about asking the important questions, such as: why should we accept a structure (ALAC/RALO) that institutionalizes a permanent disenfranchisement of our rights? Without your right to board-level representation you have nothing in the realpolitik world of ICANN. --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Danny You could consider that the RALO structure may be adjusted to allow the At Large to nominate representatives to the Board - this was mentioned in the Lisbon meeting as a possibility. It might be a recommendation from the External review- who knows?
Yet again, LAC (I know as I am a member) and quite a few of the other regions (from conversations with them) see value in the RALOs. Did you spend some time talking to other regions, and even some members in your own NA region to get their feedback as to what they find interesting and useful about the RALOS rather than insist that all of us are wrong and foolish and your way is the ONLY correct way? I saw a message from Darlene on the list that seemed to imply that her organization found the RALO useful. Have you spoken to people of like mind to see why?
If you don't find it useful, and you prefer other pathways to participate in ICANN processes, that's fine. But if others want to work within this structure, let them go ahead. Not everyone in the world thinks like you do, and the rest of us have as much right to choose our pathway to participation. You've mentioned writing directly to the ICANN Board, or joining the NonCommercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the General Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. So that's a lot of different ways for participation. Add the RALOs as one more, one that many people are finding useful.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO
There has been some discussion about the possibility of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2
/000588.html
With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it necessary to ask the question: "In the last four and a half years has any regionally-specific issue emerged that would actually justify the creation of the Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?"
I haven't seen any such issue, have you?
Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets.
I continue to have problems with the concept of following a bad model for the At-Large just because a bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us no other options.
An even worse idea is trying to finalize arrangements for a North American RALO at a time when many are questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing purpose.
In my view, we should be pressing instead for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large community that seats its members onto the ICANN Board. This was a plan originally proposed by ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO).
Anything less than this distracts from the goal of achieving representation. All of us have a large number of ways by which we may "participate" already such as having our organizations write directly to the ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the Non Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. We really don't need a regional construct just to achieve participation.
Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that puts our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than on models that continue to deny us the representation that is our right.
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ 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
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html -- 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 _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- 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
(North American list not cc'd, I'm not a member. I think it would be a good idea not to cross post to all ALAC lists. And changed the subject line a little. ) Does anyone have information about recent discussion of ICANN regions? There was some talk before the Lisbon meeting, some ccTLD managers are interested in changing the current country/region alignments, and there was a suggestion to create sub-regions or new additional regions (Asia, Australia and Pacific too large, Arab states not well represented, etc.) See <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm> Another issue to consider in the ALAC review? Adam At 12:12 PM -0400 4/11/07, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Danny You could consider that the RALO structure may be adjusted to allow the At Large to nominate representatives to the Board - this was mentioned in the Lisbon meeting as a possibility. It might be a recommendation from the External review- who knows?
Yet again, LAC (I know as I am a member) and quite a few of the other regions (from conversations with them) see value in the RALOs. Did you spend some time talking to other regions, and even some members in your own NA region to get their feedback as to what they find interesting and useful about the RALOS rather than insist that all of us are wrong and foolish and your way is the ONLY correct way? I saw a message from Darlene on the list that seemed to imply that her organization found the RALO useful. Have you spoken to people of like mind to see why?
If you don't find it useful, and you prefer other pathways to participate in ICANN processes, that's fine. But if others want to work within this structure, let them go ahead. Not everyone in the world thinks like you do, and the rest of us have as much right to choose our pathway to participation. You've mentioned writing directly to the ICANN Board, or joining the NonCommercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the General Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. So that's a lot of different ways for participation. Add the RALOs as one more, one that many people are finding useful.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:27 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO
There has been some discussion about the possibility of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2 /000588.html
With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it necessary to ask the question: "In the last four and a half years has any regionally-specific issue emerged that would actually justify the creation of the Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?"
I haven't seen any such issue, have you?
Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets.
I continue to have problems with the concept of following a bad model for the At-Large just because a bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us no other options.
An even worse idea is trying to finalize arrangements for a North American RALO at a time when many are questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing purpose.
In my view, we should be pressing instead for the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the At-Large community that seats its members onto the ICANN Board. This was a plan originally proposed by ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO).
Anything less than this distracts from the goal of achieving representation. All of us have a large number of ways by which we may "participate" already such as having our organizations write directly to the ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the Non Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to the Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public forums. We really don't need a regional construct just to achieve participation.
Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that puts our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than on models that continue to deny us the representation that is our right.
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Danny, Re:
Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO works on a global basis. Not one is divided into regional subsets.
Actually, this is not the case. Take the ASO. There are 5 Regional organizations, the RIRs (AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE/NCC), one per each ICANN Region. They debate internally, then bring the positions in the umbrella organization. Example. There has been a long debate on IPv6 address allocation. Each regional structure has debated it internally, because different regions have different problems (it does not take much to see that address allocation in North America has different problems than address allocation in Africa!), and then a common position has been reached. (Incidentally, the RIRs sign individually, not collectively, and the address blocks are given by IANA to the individual RIRs, not to the ASO or NRO, so to have regional structures is not just a formal division to please ICANN but a real functional organizational model, that predates ICANN). To a certain extent this happens also with the ccNSO. While the ccNSO does not have formal regions, there are regional organizations of ccTLD managers. Guess how many they are? And what coverage they have? (Hint: their names are, in alphabetical order, AfTLD, APTLD, CENTR, LACTLD, NATLD) The only supporting organization that is affected only because of geographical distribution, but not because of internal mechanisms, is the GNSO. But the fact that this one is the most visible should not let us draw the conclusion that the model is universal, quite the contrary. Cheers, Roberto
To those following the WHOIS Policy debate, the NCUC has amended its recent motion: NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused. The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...). This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on the whois task force. Therefore it is important that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly stating the objective. NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows: "The objective of the working group is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommended OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES." ____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Do ALAC (and/or participating ALSs) endorse this NCUC motion? I do, and it would be great to convey that support via Alan to the Council when it votes on the Terms of Reference tomorrow. (All we can do, since we don't have votes, is to endorse others' positions or to get voting members to endorse ours...) --Wendy Danny Younger wrote:
To those following the WHOIS Policy debate, the NCUC has amended its recent motion:
NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused.
The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...).
This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on the whois task force. Therefore it is important that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly stating the objective.
NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows:
"The objective of the working group is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommended OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES."
____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
-- 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/
Hi Wendy, Although I am a member of the NCUC, I do not endorse this motion. My reasons are as follows: It is important to recognize that all points of view and their respective justifications should make their way upward to the Board for their consideration, and that includes the minority recommendations contained within the report. When we act to deal with implementation issues and only concern ourselves with one set of policy recommendations (the narrow majority view) we do a disservice to the Board that is obligated to look at the whole picture and that must select a way forward that best serves the interests of the Corporation. The Board is under no obligation to accept a majority solution -- they are at liberty to pick and choose from among competing proposals. Speaking as someone that contributed a written proposal to the TF (The Natural Persons Proposal) who is fully aware of the fact that TF members didn't properly review either the public comments or the other proposals tendered (including the one that you co-authored with Avri Doria and Robin Gross), I see a need for a more expansive effort that would examine implementation considerations for all the proposals put forth. My two cents, Danny --- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Do ALAC (and/or participating ALSs) endorse this NCUC motion? I do, and it would be great to convey that support via Alan to the Council when it votes on the Terms of Reference tomorrow. (All we can do, since we don't have votes, is to endorse others' positions or to get voting members to endorse ours...)
--Wendy
Danny Younger wrote:
To those following the WHOIS Policy debate, the NCUC has amended its recent motion:
NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused.
The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...).
This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on the whois task force. Therefore it is important that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly stating the objective.
NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows:
"The objective of the working group is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommended OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES."
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
-- 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/
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
Is there a full copy of the motion? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 3:21 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS Policy Debate To those following the WHOIS Policy debate, the NCUC has amended its recent motion: NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused. The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...). This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on the whois task force. Therefore it is important that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly stating the objective. NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows: "The objective of the working group is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommended OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES." ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- 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
From my point of view:
The WHOIS information is a little too public. Privacy services are often offered by registrars at an additional cost. Therefore, it seems to me it should be made a choice whether to make information public, and so too should the cost of the privacy be a choice. Really, only ICANN and my registrar should have my contact information. Not just anyone who wants to mine the data from one of the many available access points. Thanks, Randy Glass A@L On 4/11/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Re-titled so that others may find this message in overflowing mailboxes:
The GNSO is chartering another working group on WHOIS and the privacy issues implicated by its publicly available database of domain name registrants' identifying information (name, address, email, and telephone number). The previous working group proposed permitting registrants to replace this personal information with an "Operational Point of Contact," who could accept notices and pass them along to the registrant. The new working group is tasked with determining operational details of that plan, among other things.
The working group is open to anyone, and since it is chartered to work by consensus rather than vote, individuals may actually have meaningful opportunity to shape the discussion here. Please, join us!
More info at <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html> and pasted below.
Please email Maria Farrell (maria.farrell at icann.org) or the GNSO Secretariat (GNSO.SECRETARIAT[at]GNSO.ICANN.ORG) if you would like to join the working group.
--Wendy
As per the GNSO resolution in Lisbon, a WHOIS Working Group is being formed with a 120-day timeline. All may participate.
The Charter for the WHOIS Working Group may be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html
1 Introduction The GNSO Council voted on 28 March, 2007 to create a Whois Working Group with a broad, balanced and representative membership to take the output of the WHOIS task force and carry out further work to address concerns raised by the community and seek to reach greater consensus around improvements to the WHOIS service that achieve a balance between providing contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Register Name, and the need to take reasonable precautions to protect the data about any identified or identifiable natural person from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction.
2 Background Whois ICANN's agreements with gTLD registrars and gTLD registries require them to provide data concerning active Registered Names via three mechanisms: port-43 WHOIS, an interactive web page (often called WHOIS service), and third-party bulk access. The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) spells out which data is collected and which data is made available. The data includes contact information of natural persons that includes names, postal addresses, email addresses, fax and voice telephone numbers.
Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) The GNSO is approaching the end of a PDP on Whois that should fulfill terms of reference agreed in June 2005. The terms of reference of the PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html) are to make policy recommendations to the Board on: 1.The purpose of the Whois service 2.The purpose of the Whois contacts (ie Registered Name Holder, technical contact, and administrative contact) and the purpose for which the data is collected. 3.Which data should be available for public access, and determine how to access data that is not available for public access. 4.How to improve the process for notifying a registrar of inaccurate data, and how to improve the process for correcting inaccurate data. 5.How to deal with any conflicts between the requirements of ICANN agreements, and local or national privacy laws
Regarding term of reference #5, a Policy on conflicts between Whois requirements and local or national privacy laws was developed by the GNSO and approved by the Board on 10 May 2006. A draft Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law has been published on the ICANN website at ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm ). The Final Task Force Report on Whois Services was submitted to the GNSO Council on 12 March, 2007. The Task Force Report and Staff Discussion Points on Potential Implementation Issues are available at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar07.htm. The GNSO Council met to consider the WHOIS task force report on Saturday 25 March 2007, and also met with the Government Advisory Committee. Various concerns were raised regarding some of the recommendations in the report, and subsequently the GNSO Council met on Wednesday 28 March and decided to form a working group to attempt to resolve some of the issues raised.
3 Objective The objective of the WG is to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies recommendations may be improved to address these issues.
4 Work Plan 4a Define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the contacts available for unrestricted public query-based access, and what happens if the responsibilities are not fulfilled.
4b. Determine how third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query-based access for legitimate activities.
The GAC Policy Principles on gTLD Whois Services (dated 28 March 07) sets out a list of legitimate (subject to applicable national law) activities, including:
1. Supporting the security and stability of the Internet by providing contact points for network operators and administrators, including ISPs, and certified computer incident response teams;
2. Allowing users to determine the availability of domain names;
3. Assisting law enforcement authorities in investigations, in enforcing national and international laws, including, for example, countering terrorism-related criminal offences and in supporting international cooperation procedures. In some countries, specialized non governmental entities may be involved in this work;
4. Assisting in combating against abusive uses of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as illegal and other acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, hatred, violence, all forms of child abuse, including paedophilia and child pornography, and trafficking in, and exploitation of, human beings.
5. Facilitating enquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark clearances and to help counter intellectual property infringement, misuse and theft in accordance with applicable national laws and international treaties;
6. Contributing to user confidence in the Internet as a reliable and efficient means of information and communication and as an important tool for promoting digital inclusion, e-commerce and other legitimate uses by helping users identify persons or entities responsible for content and services online; and
7. Assisting businesses, other organizations and users in combating fraud, complying with relevant laws, and safeguarding the interests of the public.
4c Determine whether and how a distinction could be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name (for example, commercial versus non-commercial use)..
The membership of this WG extends to the following:
• Nominating Committee appointed GNSO councilors • GNSO constituency members
In addition, observers and liaisons may join the working group on the following basis:
Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings.
Observers must provide their real name, organization (if associated with an organization) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members.
The email address of the GNSO Secretariat is GNSO.SECRETARIAT[at]GNSO.ICANN.ORG
-- 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
participants (6)
-
Adam Peake -
Danny Younger -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Roberto Gaetano -
Wendy Seltzer