Nick, your suggestion makes our statement much clearer which is an improvement. I do support it. rgs Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br  Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Brendler, Beau Enviada em: segunda-feira, 28 de abril de 2008 09:48 Para: Nick Ashton-Hart; At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Assunto: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits I'm closer to supporting this than anything else I've seen yet. Danny, Evan, what do you think (the document is a little difficult to read as it's very wide, I'm referring to Nick's revisions on the right). BB -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Sat 4/26/2008 11:24 AM To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits Dear All: I have been requested to provide some language which might act as a 'bridge' which could help to reconcile the views expressed about the Joint Proposal on GNSO Reform which has been the subject of considerable discussion in the NARALO in the last several days. I hope that what I have crafted is at least close to what is required. As always, whether it is used or not is entirely up to all of you. I have taken the liberty of doing the drafting using the wiki version of the ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on GNSO Improvements, since it seemed to me that this would make it easy for everyone to see the original text of that document and also the changes that I have introduced, Here are some URLs for you: 1. Side-by-side view of the original ALAC draft and the drafting work just done: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=a... 2. Original text of the ALAC Statement, unmodified: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=al_a... 3. Joint Proposal of Users: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/docTwl3R0M9fY.doc NOTE: All three members of the At-Large staff are travelling either Sunday, or Monday, to the ICANN HQ in Marina Del Rey for a staff meeting of the Policy Unit. We are therefore unlikely to see emails sent to us on this subject until Sunday night. Please keep this in mind if you need to reach us. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Danny just a minor point on the relationship between ALS's and the ALAC... ALS's coalesce into RALO's (and here there is both opportunity and need for input into ICANN Policy development at both these structural element/levels. Further we are in absolute agreement that this needs radical improvement for the At-Large Community to be properly engaged and involved .... However the ALAC is an "AC to the ICANN Board" that is constituted by equitably balanced regional representation. Currently where 3 appointments are made to represent each Region (AF; AP; EU; LAC & NA) that being two (2) directly from the respective RALO's and one (1) by NomCom appointment... We do keep seeing the use of interchanging 'nomenclature' and descriptions of 'purpose' in these conversations, a confusion (to some) that I believe is best avoided if at all possible. CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:55 AM To: Brendler, Beau; Nick Ashton-Hart; At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits Sorry to have to disagree, but if I were sitting on the Board Governance Committee I'd be scoffing at the ridiculous demands being made in this document as no case has properly been made for ALS (user) constituency status within the GNSO. A few questions: 1. The GNSO has made it possible for participation within their committees, task forces, ad-hoc groups, and volunteer drafting teams -- how many ALSs have availed themselves of the opportunity? 2. The GNSO is a policy formulating body that discusses policy matters on-line -- how many ALSs have participated in any online DNS-related policy discussion? 3. GNSO Constituencies are self-supporting and each charges a fee for membership -- how many ALSs are willing to pay a constituency membership fee? 4. GNSO Councillors travel to ICANN sessions without the benefit of ICANN travel support -- how many ALSs will be willing to regularly send their members at their own expense to GNSO functions? 5. Can you name even one ALS that knows the status of the ALAC letter sent to the Board regarding front-running? 6. Can you name even one ALS that knows the status of GNSO discussions on fast-flux or inter-registrar domain transfers or the GNSO's current position on IDNC? 7. Although the ALAC always has some sort of comment to make on the topic of WHOIS (that lends itself to armchair philosophers), how many ALSs actually volunteered to participate in an effort to define the next range of WHOIS studies? You know, when we consider topics like fast-track for IDNs, we factor in considerations such as demand and capability -- when I look at the GNSO restructuring I see no widespread demand for ALS involvement, nor do I see a capability to engage in serious policy formulation discussions. Just look at the regional lists -- has any ALS from anywhere in the world other than North America expressed an interest in an ALS constituency? New constituencies are supposed to be able to demonstrate that they are: 1) broadly representative; and 2) that the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities. Based on the track record of ALAC's ALSs, you couldn't convince me that they will act to improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development obligations... they haven't even managed to put together a proper working group on any topic whatsoever or for that matter discuss DNS policy on their own discussion lists. I will not support the current text as I believe it to be detrimental to a GNSO that suffers enough already from the presence of certain constituencies that only rarely choose to participate. We don't need more of that. --- "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:

I'm closer to supporting this than anything else I've seen yet.

Danny, Evan, what do you think (the document is a little difficult to read as it's very wide, I'm referring to Nick's revisions on the right).

BB

-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Sat 4/26/2008 11:24 AM To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits

Dear All:

I have been requested to provide some language which might act as a 'bridge' which could help to reconcile the views expressed about the Joint Proposal on GNSO Reform which has been the subject of considerable discussion in the NARALO in the last several days.

I hope that what I have crafted is at least close to what is required. As always, whether it is used or not is entirely up to all of you.

I have taken the liberty of doing the drafting using the wiki version of the ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on GNSO Improvements, since it seemed to me that this would make it easy for everyone to see the original text of that document and also the changes that I have introduced, Here are some URLs for you:

1. Side-by-side view of the original ALAC draft and the drafting work just done:

https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=a l_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statement_on_gnso_improvements&mode=source&new_rev ision_id=20080426152144&old_revision_id=20080423215537&Button=Compare+Revisi ons

2. Original text of the ALAC Statement, unmodified:

https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=al_a lac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statement_on_gnso_improvements;revision_id=2008042321 5537

3. Joint Proposal of Users:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/docTwl3R0M9fY.doc

NOTE: All three members of the At-Large staff are travelling either Sunday, or Monday, to the ICANN HQ in Marina Del Rey for a staff meeting of the Policy Unit. We are therefore unlikely to see emails sent to us on this subject until Sunday night. Please keep this in mind if you need to reach us.

--

Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

*** Scanned

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

At 28/04/2008 08:47 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

...

However the ALAC is an "AC to the ICANN Board" that is constituted by equitably balanced regional representation. This is inaccurate.

Only two-thirds of ALAC is regional representation. The other third is regionally balanced but not representative of, voted by or responsible to anyone.

ALAC is not, in its entirety, a representative body and should stop advancing itself as such.

In the interest of accuracy please describe ALAC as "_partially_ constituted by equitably balanced regional representation".

The two RALO appointed members do indeed represent the RALO and its ALSs. It is subject to debate whether you believe that in every region and at every point in time, a RALO and its ALS fully and accurately represent all USERS of that region. The NomCom appointed ALAC members are charged with doing just that. No doubt this latter task is also potentially as fraught with problems, but it does give some balance to the committee.

If ICANN wants to use the NomComm to pick an advisory board of (what it believes to be) sage voices it is welcome to do so. But calling these voices representatives of anyone -- let alone the public grassroots -- is incorrect and potentially misleading.

...

We do keep seeing the use of interchanging 'nomenclature' and descriptions of 'purpose' in these conversations, a confusion (to some) that I believe is best avoided if at all possible. I'm happy that you are interested in accuracy. So I hope you'll appreciate my correction above and consider it in the future when describing the ALAC to others.

- Evan

PS: The GNSO, in its revision proposal, sees merit in having 100% of its council be representative, and its NomComm appointees as non-voting advisors. Why is this approach not reasonable for ALAC?

Just to be clear, this is, as you noted, a "proposal". At the moment, all NomCom appointees are full voting members of the groups to which they are appointed, and one of the motivations is to add some measure of balance to the other members who represent specific organizations (just as RALO appointed members represent their RALO and ALSs). Alan

Agree with Evan. The committee balance, the NonComm appointing process and the like is just another excuse and attempt how to dilute and confuse the public effort and to conduct ALAC's activities. The primary goal of ALAC is to firmly DEMAND adequate voting power, not to 'kindly' ask for it. An adequate voting power, not one voice lost in the pile of anonymous voices. It is ridiculous that after years the wide public community still has no voting power. All attempts to accomplish this in the past failed due to the perpetual staff ignorance. This tells enough about proclaimed seriousness and sincerity of the staff towards the public voice, and as such they deserve adequate response from the public audience. I am fed up with all that servile speech in documents such as 'we welcome/applaud/appreciate the Board decision' and the like. In fact, many of them would deserve to be immediately fired along with many other staffers. Frankly, this would be the only adequate appreciation of their overall REAL work done for the public community. The ALAC and the public voice will be as strong as strong will be its defense coming from the public community. The staffers must clearly see and understand they are serving the public community, not vice versa. The ALAC should not get involved into this cover-up but instead strongly insist on its independent and accountable position with all the legitimate power associated with it. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:25 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits Alan Greenberg wrote:

The two RALO appointed members do indeed represent the RALO and its ALSs. It is subject to debate whether you believe that in every region and at every point in time, a RALO and its ALS fully and accurately represent all USERS of that region. Of course the challenge is to get as much genuine representation as possible. If various countries or interest groups exist that need a voice, then attempts should be made to genuinely give them that voice -- not to appoint people pretending to speak on their behalf with ZERO accountability.

The NomCom appointed ALAC members are charged with doing just that. We're ALL charged with trying to represent the grassroots as best we can. The difference is that the ALS delegates to ALAC must be accountable to their ALS _and_ their RALO. The fact remains -- despite all sugar coating -- that once selected, the NonCommers are accountable to nobody. That's two levels of accountability, election and potential recall by the grassrooots, compared to zero.

No doubt this latter task is also potentially as fraught with problems, but it does give some balance to the committee.

The problems far outweigh the balance -- and it's not potential, it's very real as we've witnessed in the lack of ability of NARALO to respond adequately to the GNSO documents. The problems in NomComm appointees to ALAC compound further once one considers the reciprocal incestuousness inherent in ALAC picking NomComm members. ALAC is always in need of good sources of advice on policy, and it doesn't need the NomComm to identify those good sources. What is at issue are delegates who have zero accountability to the grassroots, affecting the direction of At-Large with equal status to those with proper accountability.

Just to be clear, this is, as you noted, a "proposal". At the moment, all NomCom appointees are full voting members of the groups to which they are appointed, and one of the motivations is to add some measure of balance to the other members who represent specific organizations (just as RALO appointed members represent their RALO and ALSs).

I simply note that the GNSO proposal comes to the same sane conclusion that must seriously be considered by ALAC -- have appointees for advice by all means, but limit voting and leadership to elected representatives. In any case, the repeated excuse of "balance" is disturbing and bordering on insult. To speak of a need for balance is to assert that there is something unwanted amongst the elected, accountable representatives that must be balanced against. I am eagerly awaiting a enumeration of those undesirable components, ESPECIALLY in the constitution of a body that is itself supposed to be representative of ICANN's grassroots. I hope that anyone who has spoken to the ALAC review people (and especially those of you who haven't yet, please do) will indicate the impediment to the maturation of ALAC caused by the NomComm component. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

First of all, what you call the revision proposal of the GNSO is not the proposal of the whole GNSO, but of a part of it.

It is reasonable that existing NomComm members of GNSO would not want to see their privilege removed, so unanimous consent within the current body was never to be expected. I am simply pleased to see it as a majority recommendation. Similarly, I don't expect the NomComms to go silently from ALAC either.

Anyway, the main rason for my reply is a different one, and is related to ALAC.[...] Now, that all RALOs are up and running, it is, IMHO, appropriate to ask the question on whether all 15 ALAC members should be nominated by the ALSes, via the RALOs. That would not exclude, still IMHO, the possibility of having some "additional" members, maybe without voting rights, tha the NomCom could appoint to cover specific situations that are not covered by the normal process. This is exactly what I am suggesting. The ALAC will always benefit from outside advice and assistance. Even now it has the capacity to appoint special advisors of unlimited numbers. However, internal leadership and direction should come exclusively from accountable members.

- Evan