New subject: Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2

Feb. 15, 2008

      Beau,

So, I assume that you would be happy to have a constituency in the GNSO,
like the Business Constituency, and only two people in the NomCom. Of
course, no Liaison to the Board, at that point. That would match exactly the
power of the BC.

Is that the consensus?

Thanks,
Roberto

  _____  

From: Brendler, Beau [mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org] 
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2008 09:48
To: Roberto Gaetano; Jacqueline Morris; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org;
ttcs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [At-Large] Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2

In my opinion, if we don't get what we are asking for, there is not much
point in having an ALAC. In answer to your question, I would rate the
"power" of the individual users compared to the "power" of the business
constituency, registrars, etc., as about a 1 compared to a 10.

Beau Brendler

  _____  

From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Thu 2/14/2008 12:48 PM
To: 'Jacqueline Morris'; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ttcs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2

I have a question. 
How would you rate the "power" of the individual users (via the ALAC) in the
ICANN process compared, for instance, to the "power" of business users (via
the Business Constituency)? Considering that the ICANN model is a
multistakeholder model, where different stakeholder groups participate on
equal footing, comparable stakeholder groups are supposed to have similar
rights.

I believe that, also considering the different reviews (GNSO, NomCom and
ALAC) ongoing, you might better be careful in what you ask for, because you
might get it.

Cheers, 
Roberto
...
-----Original Message----- 
From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org 
[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of 
Jacqueline Morris 
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2008 21:35 
To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ttcs@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2
Fyi 
Please comment. 
Jacqueline
---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
From: Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de> 
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:20:14 +0430 
Subject: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2 
To: ALAC internal list <alac-internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Dear folks,
Here, the draft by the present drafting group members: 
Annette, Beau, Wolf
we stayed in the taj palace and come over to dinner now! ;-)
see you soon
best greetings
annette
Proposed ALAC-statement regarding JPA:
As the JPA (between the US Government and ICANN) is under 
Review, ALAC wishes to underline the unique opportunity the 
occasion offers to realize the original goals that led to the 
formation of ICANN. These include, inter alia, 
acknowledgement of the international nature of ICANN, support 
of the multi-stakeholder bottom-up approach to the management 
of ICANN, and the provision of viable and stable channels for 
the involvement of individual Internet users in the ICANN 
policy formation process. Measures must be implemented to 
ensure non-discriminatory availability of ICANN/IANA services 
as well as the opportunity for the involvement of global 
individual users in the ICANN process.
In its role as the voice of the individual Internet users, 
ALAC firmly believes that the current multi-stakeholder 
framework at ICANN should be further strengthened to allow 
more effective involvement of end-users. The process to full 
participation of individual users through the ALAC and its 
Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) is being undertaken 
at this moment. There is, however, a lack of incentives for 
the participants, especially a lack of direct involvement at 
the decision-making levels of ICANN. Therefore,
we believe ICANN should consider mechanisms for stronger user 
participation, such as At-Large voting rights on the GNSO 
council and the ICANN board.
Alternative for the last sentence:
[we think that ICANN should find ways to implement adequate 
representation of individual users at the decision-making 
levels of ICANN so that a real multi-stakeholder framework is 
achieved.]
In addition, we believe no government should have a 
pre-eminent role in DNS management and exercise power over 
database changes and root-server data. We suggest that an 
institutional form should be found as soon as possible so 
that ICANN does not lie under the authority of any single 
national legislation. We also strongly advocate transparency 
and openness in the process of making any structural change 
in the ICANN framework for the coming transition.
We are concerned that the successor oversight framework is 
still not clear and ICANN needs to clarify the transitional 
arrangements with regard to accountability and transparency 
as well as to allow further definition and evolution of the 
multi-stakeholder model of governance under which it operates.
We need to know what replaces the JPA, which refers to "the 
global participation of all stakeholders" and "mechanisms for 
involvement of those affected by the ICANN policies." As the 
Internet-using public is a key set of stakeholders affected 
by ICANN's policies, it is critical, including for Internet 
security and stability, that the organization be accountable 
to the public and account effectively for its input.
Respectfully submitted,
Chair
At-Large Advisory Committee
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2

Roberto Gaetano

Jeffrey A. Williams

tags

participants (2)