Dear ALAC, while you ponder on the correct procedures to produce a comment on the "role of individual users in the GNSO", comment like this one are appearing: http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00001.html I don't want to look like the old guy saying "I told you so", but I told you all since when this GNSO restructuring process began that by pushing for the ALAC to have a direct role in the GNSO, you are shooting yourselves in the foot and possibly also in the head. That's because you are giving other interest groups a valid reason for saying "but if they are in fact a GNSO constituency, and they so declare themselves, then why should they also have an AC role and Board representatives?" It's a good thing that you fall in love with the GNSO, and a kiss doesn't harm, but please be sure that she doesn't have HIV or the resulting activities might end with your death. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio I'm sure I'm only the first to say to you and anyone else that cares to listen that the ALAC per se has not, now or in any of its discussions or official statement s ever suggested or indicated that we are "pushing the ALAC to have a direct role in the GNSO" in fact we have *carefully* crafted all our statements correspondence and meeting dialogue to show ( and here I direct you to the transcripts from the Meeting held in Cairo with the User House Interest) that we intend the exact *opposite of this* we stand ready to facilitate Internet or End User input into GNSO activities, WG's etc., as well as any Non Commercial User e Constituency(ies) But We as an Advisory Committee to the ALAC Board do NOT wish to be directly involved as such in the new GNSO structure... CLO -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Thursday, 20 November 2008 9:15 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] The kiss of death Dear ALAC, while you ponder on the correct procedures to produce a comment on the "role of individual users in the GNSO", comment like this one are appearing: http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00001.html I don't want to look like the old guy saying "I told you so", but I told you all since when this GNSO restructuring process began that by pushing for the ALAC to have a direct role in the GNSO, you are shooting yourselves in the foot and possibly also in the head. That's because you are giving other interest groups a valid reason for saying "but if they are in fact a GNSO constituency, and they so declare themselves, then why should they also have an AC role and Board representatives?" It's a good thing that you fall in love with the GNSO, and a kiss doesn't harm, but please be sure that she doesn't have HIV or the resulting activities might end with your death. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:15:13 +0100, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
I don't want to look like the old guy saying "I told you so", but I told you all since when this GNSO restructuring process began that by pushing for the ALAC to have a direct role in the GNSO, you are shooting yourselves in the foot and possibly also in the head.
Vittorio, This is why I pleaded (not loud enough maybe) that the ALAC should indeed be the sole group representing the individual users within ICANN and that no other group should claim to represent them. The GNSO user house will only contribute to blur the picture, and especially since it seems any 5 people could show up at a meeting and claim to become a constituency within the GNSO user house. My main concern is how can these people claim to represent anyone beyond themselves. And if they only represent themselves, how important is their opinion ? The net effect if that the opinion of the individual end users within the GNSO will be considered irrelevant. This is why we need a strong(er) ALAC. There is more to ICANN than just the GNSO, but the current mood is to focus on the gTLDs and everything attached to it: new gtlds, RAA, whois, etc, while other issues are pushed aside. Coming from a region where the gTLDs are anecdotical compared to the ccTLDs, I indeed find too much attention and energy is invested by the At-Large on the gTLD issues, but I understand it may nevertheless be a concern for other regions. Needless to say, I disagree with Sheppard's GNSO-centric view of ICANN.
It's a good thing that you fall in love with the GNSO, and a kiss doesn't harm, but please be sure that she doesn't have HIV or the resulting activities might end with your death.
I like the analogy ;-) Patrick
At 7:53 AM -0500 11/20/08, Ross Rader wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
then why should they also have an AC role and Board representatives?"
...and so many additional seats more than any other constituency on the nominating committee.
For what it's worth, GNSO collectively has more seats on the nominating committee, 7 to 5. Any comments on the new draft of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group petition document? <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20...> It suggests organizations and individuals that participate in the ALAC are eligible to become members of the NCGS, i.e. not the ALAC, but the entities that make up the ALAC. I don't see a problem. For example, some ISOC chapters are currently members of the NCUC (Mauritius and New York) and as I understand it can also be ALS and part of the ALAC (or do I need to re-read ALS criteria?) So the only proposed change is for the NCGS to allow individuals to participate directly in a constituency body of the GNSO. Adam
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I continue to believe that as many real user voices that can be brought into the process, the better. So I don't see any problems. I think also the New York chapter of ISOC has either petitioned to become an ALS or has already been approved as one. BB ________________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake [ajp@glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:16 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] The kiss of death At 7:53 AM -0500 11/20/08, Ross Rader wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
then why should they also have an AC role and Board representatives?"
...and so many additional seats more than any other constituency on the nominating committee.
For what it's worth, GNSO collectively has more seats on the nominating committee, 7 to 5. Any comments on the new draft of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group petition document? <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20...> It suggests organizations and individuals that participate in the ALAC are eligible to become members of the NCGS, i.e. not the ALAC, but the entities that make up the ALAC. I don't see a problem. For example, some ISOC chapters are currently members of the NCUC (Mauritius and New York) and as I understand it can also be ALS and part of the ALAC (or do I need to re-read ALS criteria?) So the only proposed change is for the NCGS to allow individuals to participate directly in a constituency body of the GNSO. Adam
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
For what it's worth, GNSO collectively has more seats on the nominating committee, 7 to 5.
I would not base a strategy on the current seat allocation for the NomCom, considering that a review of the NomCom is underway, and the current allocation might no longer be valid in the future. Roberto
Reducing the weight of the Alac in the nomcom would be a shame IMHO. --- /ross ..sent from my phone On 22-Nov-08, at 4:06, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
For what it's worth, GNSO collectively has more seats on the nominating committee, 7 to 5.
I would not base a strategy on the current seat allocation for the NomCom, considering that a review of the NomCom is underway, and the current allocation might no longer be valid in the future.
Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
It has to be seen in conjunction with the review of the composition of the Board. In essence, we need to keep a global balance. If, for instance, ALAC would elect direct representatives to the Board, like the SOs, a reduction of the presence in NomCom would be reasonable. I am just making an example here, not taking any commitment to what the Board will decide, all what I am saying is that we can't see all the different bodies in isolation. To make another example, it is also reasonable that if ALAC takes direct engagement in the GNSO (which is a radically different thing than having individual ALSes participating in ALAC and in a Stakeholder Group) a reduction of its "power" as AC could be in order. This is related to the total number of representatives in the NomCom, and ultimately in the way that Directors are elected. The matter is complex. For this reason the BGC has recommended to establish a separate committee, and the Board has deliberated in this sense in Cairo. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Saturday, 22 November 2008 12:20 To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] The kiss of death
Reducing the weight of the Alac in the nomcom would be a shame IMHO.
---
/ross
..sent from my phone
On 22-Nov-08, at 4:06, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
For what it's worth, GNSO collectively has more seats on the nominating committee, 7 to 5.
I would not base a strategy on the current seat allocation for the NomCom, considering that a review of the NomCom is
underway, and the
current allocation might no longer be valid in the future.
Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists
.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Nov 22, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
If, for instance, ALAC would elect direct representatives to the Board, like the SOs,
I don't think this would be a step in the right direction. I mean, it might appear okay for the ALAC on its face, but I've always had concerns about the SOs appointing directors outside of the nominating committee process. The NCttee process is very balanced, and on the whole, produced very strong candidates to sit on the board. The democratic SO process has been much less successful, as it is really only possible for a popular candidate to win the election. In some cases, we are lucky to see popularity coupled with capability, but this is not always the case. I think ICANN has a much brighter future were all board appointments made through the NCttee. /r
At 19:00 22/11/2008, Ross Rader wrote:
On Nov 22, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
If, for instance, ALAC would elect direct representatives to the Board, like the SOs,
I don't think this would be a step in the right direction. I mean, it might appear okay for the ALAC on its face, but I've always had concerns about the SOs appointing directors outside of the nominating committee process.
The NomCom process makes the BoD a Staff auditing committee. With no accountability to the users. The problem is very simple: nowadays users have the technical, political, organisational skills, and work on the post JPA structures, to replace in total or in part ICANN. Their motivation to do that was low until the Paris meeting where GAC had not signaled a particular position about the post Aug. 31, 2009. This has changed for bad or good with the position taken by Minister Besson for France and Europe, moreover in the present I¨Pv6 non-deployment and crazy "Internet for the Rich" gTLD scheme context. IMHO either the ICANN BoD comes back to a situation where the President has no vote and the @large 50% of the BoD or there will be several co-governing bodies of the Internet. Probably, ITU, ICANN and ATLARGE. One with power, one with money, one with knowledge. Until now the question was: is it what we want? I suppose this will be settled in Nice, Hyderabad and with the new US administration. jfc Email analysé par Internet Security (6.0.0.386) Version de la base de données : 5.11180 http://www.pctools.com/fr/internet-security/
Dear Vittorio, ISOC wants ALAC to be a part of the GNSO. ISOC seems to also want @larges and users out of IPv6 issues (http://isoc-ipv6.org). ICANN does not want ALS with more than one or two activists. IGF makes as if the few "Civil Society" professionals represent us. Politics, management and techies always think "the users, voters and clients are the problem". After we got icannatlarge.org (in spite of you :-)) last election, we incorporated ATLARGE in parallel to your try with ICANN. That try was to be given a chance. You were with Roberto the proper ones to conduct it. So, we stalled ATLARGE. Richard Henderson did the same in holding our domain name until situation clarified. Many tried to help ALAC: they went away. Before deciding it was over, france@large had a last attempt. We know the result. The international White Book agreement, like WSIS saying the information society is people centered, said 50% of the BoD would be @large (.i.e. a never attained minority due to the extra seat of the ICANN President - Joe Sims and Ira Magaziner are good). Now, Paul Twomey sells an "Internet for the Rich" and ALAC will be an NCUCbis. Are we not supposed to only be Google's proletariat (those who do not own information and must sell/give away their privacy to get at it). Since it is now plain that ICANN just want to use ALAC as an alibi and does not want @larges to interface the users' world for them, we can conclude the try is closed. And freely act accordingly. (ISOC is still to clarify). jfc Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Dear ALAC, while you ponder on the correct procedures to produce a comment on the "role of individual users in the GNSO", comment like this one are appearing:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00001.html
I don't want to look like the old guy saying "I told you so", but I told you all since when this GNSO restructuring process began that by pushing for the ALAC to have a direct role in the GNSO, you are shooting yourselves in the foot and possibly also in the head.
That's because you are giving other interest groups a valid reason for saying "but if they are in fact a GNSO constituency, and they so declare themselves, then why should they also have an AC role and Board representatives?"
It's a good thing that you fall in love with the GNSO, and a kiss doesn't harm, but please be sure that she doesn't have HIV or the resulting activities might end with your death.
Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (8)
-
Adam Peake -
Brendler, Beau -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
JFC Morfin -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano -
Ross Rader -
Vittorio Bertola