Re: [At-Large] ALAC Positions open for nominations 2007-2008
Siavash Shahshahani wrote:
Here's a problem for those who think non-comm appointees are unnecessary: There are more than a few countries where NGOs are looked upon with suspicion by the local govt and potential ALSs are simply afraid to apply to ICANN for accreditation. Should we disenfranchise citizens of those countries? Note that the same risk may not necessarily apply to an 'individual' selected by non-comm as long as the individual is well-known and trusted in the country and is not in the business of organizing a group which the govt deems potentially subversive. I agree that this is a problem, but its solution is beyond the scope of the NomComm, for a number of reasons:
1) It involves a deeper involvement in politics than may be desirable. 2) There is a finite limit to the number of NomComm ALAC reps; in a region where multiple instances of these obstacles occur, who is to judge which countries have voice and which do not? 3) The NomComm appears to have a built-in bias against the inexperienced, although I would add that this is reasonable given the actual mandate that the NomComm has regarding its choices for ALAC. 4) ALSs participate at the RALO level, and each region gets two selections to ALAC. It is unfair to the other ALSs if people get to immediately participate at a higher level (ALAC instead of RALO) only because they come from a country which impedes NGO development. I suggest that the answer is to achieve this empowerment through the RALOs rather than through the NomComm, where the issue has already been addressed in at least one region. NARALO explicitly developed its internal structure to allow and encourage participation by individuals who are not part of ALSs. Why did ALAC not provide guidance to all RALOs to address this issue? Doing so would encourage individual participation at the RALO level (in unlimited numbers) from every country with the problems described by Siavash. Please consider the process with the greater level of transparency, accountability, public participation and regional awareness. - Evan
Hi Evan To correct misinformation - ALL RALO formation groups were encouraged to include individuals. However, the ALSes were ultimately responsible for their regional organization, and ALAC did make a conscious decision to be hands off in the regional formation with regard to their operating principles etc (within the limits of the bylaws). So, if you think individuals should be allowed to participate in other regions RALOs, then you are free to contact the members of those RALOs and lobby them to change their minds. With regard to your other comments - as I have said previously, the nomCom review is underway, and they are asking for input, so maybe your comments should be directed there, where they can inform the review of the NomCom. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:30 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Positions open for nominations 2007-2008 Siavash Shahshahani wrote:
Here's a problem for those who think non-comm appointees are unnecessary: There are more than a few countries where NGOs are looked upon with suspicion by the local govt and potential ALSs are simply afraid to apply to ICANN for accreditation. Should we disenfranchise citizens of those countries? Note that the same risk may not necessarily apply to an 'individual' selected by non-comm as long as the individual is well-known and trusted in the country and is not in the business of organizing a group which the govt deems potentially subversive. I agree that this is a problem, but its solution is beyond the scope of the NomComm, for a number of reasons:
1) It involves a deeper involvement in politics than may be desirable. 2) There is a finite limit to the number of NomComm ALAC reps; in a region where multiple instances of these obstacles occur, who is to judge which countries have voice and which do not? 3) The NomComm appears to have a built-in bias against the inexperienced, although I would add that this is reasonable given the actual mandate that the NomComm has regarding its choices for ALAC. 4) ALSs participate at the RALO level, and each region gets two selections to ALAC. It is unfair to the other ALSs if people get to immediately participate at a higher level (ALAC instead of RALO) only because they come from a country which impedes NGO development. I suggest that the answer is to achieve this empowerment through the RALOs rather than through the NomComm, where the issue has already been addressed in at least one region. NARALO explicitly developed its internal structure to allow and encourage participation by individuals who are not part of ALSs. Why did ALAC not provide guidance to all RALOs to address this issue? Doing so would encourage individual participation at the RALO level (in unlimited numbers) from every country with the problems described by Siavash. Please consider the process with the greater level of transparency, accountability, public participation and regional awareness. - 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1064 - Release Date: 10/11/2007 15:09 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1064 - Release Date: 10/11/2007 15:09
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
ALL RALO formation groups were encouraged to include individuals. Were Siavash's concerns understood or expressed at the time they were created? I don't ever recall any ALAC encouragement to include individuals when NARALO was formed -- our motivation to do this was internal.
So, if you think individuals should be allowed to participate in other regions RALOs, then you are free to contact the members of those RALOs and lobby them to change their minds.
It is neither my role nor my intention to lobby other RALOs on internal policy. I am addressing the legitimate point raised by Siavash regarding certain kinds of At-Large representation. It is my position that, if there is general concern within ALAC for this issue, that it be addressed it through the RALOs and not used as a justification for NomComm appointees. - Evan
I wasn't very involved in the formation of NARALO, but ALAC member at the time Wendy and past ALAC member Jean were very vocal proponents of the idea in NARALO, as I recall from the lists. If the participation of NA ALAC members does not count as ALAC input... is it expected that all 15 members participate in order for it to be ALAC participation? I was present when it was discussed in LACRALO and on the EURALO list when they were forming as well. There are many reasons for NomCom in ICANN, and Siavash's concern is one issue. As I said- if there is concern about the role and function of the NomCom, now is the time to make those concerns known to the NomCom review. Until the review is finished and the ICANN community determines to change the rules, we abide by them. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 13:47 To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Positions open for nominations 2007-2008 Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
ALL RALO formation groups were encouraged to include individuals. Were Siavash's concerns understood or expressed at the time they were created? I don't ever recall any ALAC encouragement to include individuals when NARALO was formed -- our motivation to do this was internal.
So, if you think individuals should be allowed to participate in other regions RALOs, then you are free to contact the members of those RALOs and lobby them to change their minds.
It is neither my role nor my intention to lobby other RALOs on internal policy. I am addressing the legitimate point raised by Siavash regarding certain kinds of At-Large representation. It is my position that, if there is general concern within ALAC for this issue, that it be addressed it through the RALOs and not used as a justification for NomComm appointees. - Evan No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1064 - Release Date: 10/11/2007 15:09 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1064 - Release Date: 10/11/2007 15:09
Evan, Please note that I wrote 'a problem...', so as I indicated in my earlier response to Patrick, there may be other reasons why you may get consistent under- or over-representation from certain territories. I think Jacqueline is right in suggesting that the problem be brought to the attention of Nom-Comm review group. My personal opinion is that even the idea of 'regions' based on traditional geography and their quotas are things that has to be re-examined. At this time two fifths of any regional representaion in ICANN comes from the Americas; historical legacy, yes, but perhaps time to put in a more flexible and dynamic mechanism for representation quotas. To me the advantage of retaining Nom-Comm (perhaps with a gradual diminishing of share) is to ensure balance of various sorts. Siavash
Siavash Shahshahani wrote:
Here's a problem for those who think non-comm appointees are unnecessary: There are more than a few countries where NGOs are looked upon with suspicion by the local govt and potential ALSs are simply afraid to apply to ICANN for accreditation. Should we disenfranchise citizens of those countries? Note that the same risk may not necessarily apply to an 'individual' selected by non-comm as long as the individual is well-known and trusted in the country and is not in the business of organizing a group which the govt deems potentially subversive. I agree that this is a problem, but its solution is beyond the scope of the NomComm, for a number of reasons:
1) It involves a deeper involvement in politics than may be desirable.
2) There is a finite limit to the number of NomComm ALAC reps; in a region where multiple instances of these obstacles occur, who is to judge which countries have voice and which do not?
3) The NomComm appears to have a built-in bias against the inexperienced, although I would add that this is reasonable given the actual mandate that the NomComm has regarding its choices for ALAC.
4) ALSs participate at the RALO level, and each region gets two selections to ALAC. It is unfair to the other ALSs if people get to immediately participate at a higher level (ALAC instead of RALO) only because they come from a country which impedes NGO development.
I suggest that the answer is to achieve this empowerment through the RALOs rather than through the NomComm, where the issue has already been addressed in at least one region. NARALO explicitly developed its internal structure to allow and encourage participation by individuals who are not part of ALSs.
Why did ALAC not provide guidance to all RALOs to address this issue? Doing so would encourage individual participation at the RALO level (in unlimited numbers) from every country with the problems described by Siavash. Please consider the process with the greater level of transparency, accountability, public participation and regional awareness.
- 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Siavash Shahshahani