Re: [EURO-Discuss] Why no room for individuals in the RALO?
Rudi can you explain to Wendy? The situation in the room was that one group was in favour of equal rights for individuals (including me) and other who argued that there should be only the ALS. Arguments went forwards and backwards and unfortunately (from my point oif view) irgnoted partly wha has been discussed in this constituencies for years since the cancellation of the elections. The compromise was to allow individuals to join but as noin voting members. They can also join the EURALO Board, but need a nomination from the ALS and the election vote comes from the ALS. However this is preliminary and will be reconsidered by the first General Assembly of EURALO Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Wendy Seltzer Gesendet: Mi 28.03.2007 15:08 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] Why no room for individuals in the RALO? Please help me to understand why you are creating a RALO that excludes individuals who haven't found a congenial ALS. It looks to me as though this structure just further disenfranchises the individuals from ICANN processes. Why should the individual Internet user support this structure? When I asked earlier, I had thought the European group was including individual participants. Why the rush? --Wendy At 08:21 AM 3/28/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear European Colleagues:
For those who are not physically present tomorrow, but would like to be one of the signers of the MoU, a procedure has been created for you.
PLEASE SEND IN AS BELOW NOT LATER THAN 1700 THURSDAY 29TH MARCH 2007
PLEASE NOTE: There will be a way, as provided by the MoU, to be determined by the EURALO, for ALSes to consent to be bound by the MoU at a later date.
Simply send to me, copied to the list, the following form of words, with the name of your organisation in place of the brackets, and as required directly below the sentence:
-------
I hereby consent for [INSERT ORGANISATION FULL NAME] to be bound by the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Signing Organisations in the European Region as if I were personally signing the document.
Name Organisational Title Date
---- Note that I have attached the signature text of the MoU in the current version. Signatory information will change as the day goes on and I receive additional signatories' information.
-- 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/ _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Wendy, To make a long story short: some of us talked for 3 years about how we could include individual users. For most ALSes however, it has only been a year since we were included in the process. Over this last year, there was no serious, documented, proposal for an individual memberhip process that: - would allow individuals to register and clearly identify them. The goal being to avoid fake registrations - would prevent the RALO from being captured by specific interest groups under the guise of individual membership An obvious way to do this would be to request a membership fee. But then we would create an economic barrier. And if we have a membership fee, we would need to have a value proposal for these members. Which leads us to the need to have a full-fledged office to manage the membership and every thing that goes with it. For an organization with a zero budget, that seems difficult. Further, there are several ALSes that have open and free membership and can be used by individuals to channel their concerns about the ICANN processes. They certainly would welcome new ideas from new individuals. At our meeting last Sunday, we had a vote. The majority decided to postpone the inclusion of individual members. This requires a serious study, that still needs to be started. We do not have a board yet, hence no leaders to request a proposal (and no volunteers to write one, as far as I know). Beyond the idealistic idea of individual memberhip, there is a whole list of very down to earth issues that need to be solved. If and when we come up with an answer to these, I am convinced the EURALO assembly will have no objection to adapt the bylaws. Wolfgang mentioned previous discussions on the ALAC list about that specific question. It has only been recently that ALSes have been awarded access to the ALAC list. We miss the history. Hence, if the ALAC or its members can point us to some documents or studies about individual membership in the ICANN/ALAC context, this would really help the European RALO to take a decision. All the best, Patrick Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
Rudi can you explain to Wendy?
The situation in the room was that one group was in favour of equal rights for individuals (including me) and other who argued that there should be only the ALS. Arguments went forwards and backwards and unfortunately (from my point oif view) irgnoted partly wha has been discussed in this constituencies for years since the cancellation of the elections.
The compromise was to allow individuals to join but as noin voting members. They can also join the EURALO Board, but need a nomination from the ALS and the election vote comes from the ALS.
However this is preliminary and will be reconsidered by the first General Assembly of EURALO
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Wendy Seltzer Gesendet: Mi 28.03.2007 15:08 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] Why no room for individuals in the RALO?
Please help me to understand why you are creating a RALO that excludes individuals who haven't found a congenial ALS. It looks to me as though this structure just further disenfranchises the individuals from ICANN processes. Why should the individual Internet user support this structure?
When I asked earlier, I had thought the European group was including individual participants.
Why the rush? --Wendy
At 08:21 AM 3/28/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear European Colleagues:
For those who are not physically present tomorrow, but would like to be one of the signers of the MoU, a procedure has been created for you.
PLEASE SEND IN AS BELOW NOT LATER THAN 1700 THURSDAY 29TH MARCH 2007
PLEASE NOTE: There will be a way, as provided by the MoU, to be determined by the EURALO, for ALSes to consent to be bound by the MoU at a later date.
Simply send to me, copied to the list, the following form of words, with the name of your organisation in place of the brackets, and as required directly below the sentence:
-------
I hereby consent for [INSERT ORGANISATION FULL NAME] to be bound by the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Signing Organisations in the European Region as if I were personally signing the document.
Name Organisational Title Date
---- Note that I have attached the signature text of the MoU in the current version. Signatory information will change as the day goes on and I receive additional signatories' information.
-- Patrick Vande Walle Chairman Internet Society Luxembourg Web site: http://www.isoc.lu Blog: http://patrick-vande-walle.eu Jabber me at patrick@isoc.lu
Hi, I find this difficult to believe. ICANN's first membership advisory committee that did the "serious studies" you are asking for, was founded in 1998, yes, 1998! http://www.icann.org/committees/membership/biographies.htm The MAC discussed at length all the questions you mention below. The MAC came to the conclusion that individuals should and can have a voice in ICANN and it made suggestions how this can be achieved. Likewise, there was long struggle in the DNSO about a constituency for individual members because individual users should have a say in ICANN. And now we should start all over again with the question whether or not this makes sense? This reminds me of the debate on new TLDs and whether more of them could do any harm for the DNS... Personally, I won't join any ALS because it would be a sham if I did so. I speak on my behalf and not in the name of any organization like most of you do too. f I cannot participate in my individual capacity, I rather don't. I find this discussion immensely frustrating. jeanette Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Wendy,
To make a long story short: some of us talked for 3 years about how we could include individual users. For most ALSes however, it has only been a year since we were included in the process. Over this last year, there was no serious, documented, proposal for an individual memberhip process that:
- would allow individuals to register and clearly identify them. The goal being to avoid fake registrations - would prevent the RALO from being captured by specific interest groups under the guise of individual membership
An obvious way to do this would be to request a membership fee. But then we would create an economic barrier. And if we have a membership fee, we would need to have a value proposal for these members. Which leads us to the need to have a full-fledged office to manage the membership and every thing that goes with it. For an organization with a zero budget, that seems difficult.
Further, there are several ALSes that have open and free membership and can be used by individuals to channel their concerns about the ICANN processes. They certainly would welcome new ideas from new individuals.
At our meeting last Sunday, we had a vote. The majority decided to postpone the inclusion of individual members. This requires a serious study, that still needs to be started. We do not have a board yet, hence no leaders to request a proposal (and no volunteers to write one, as far as I know). Beyond the idealistic idea of individual memberhip, there is a whole list of very down to earth issues that need to be solved. If and when we come up with an answer to these, I am convinced the EURALO assembly will have no objection to adapt the bylaws.
Wolfgang mentioned previous discussions on the ALAC list about that specific question. It has only been recently that ALSes have been awarded access to the ALAC list. We miss the history. Hence, if the ALAC or its members can point us to some documents or studies about individual membership in the ICANN/ALAC context, this would really help the European RALO to take a decision.
All the best,
Patrick
Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
Rudi can you explain to Wendy?
The situation in the room was that one group was in favour of equal rights for individuals (including me) and other who argued that there should be only the ALS. Arguments went forwards and backwards and unfortunately (from my point oif view) irgnoted partly wha has been discussed in this constituencies for years since the cancellation of the elections.
The compromise was to allow individuals to join but as noin voting members. They can also join the EURALO Board, but need a nomination from the ALS and the election vote comes from the ALS.
However this is preliminary and will be reconsidered by the first General Assembly of EURALO
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Wendy Seltzer Gesendet: Mi 28.03.2007 15:08 An: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] Why no room for individuals in the RALO?
Please help me to understand why you are creating a RALO that excludes individuals who haven't found a congenial ALS. It looks to me as though this structure just further disenfranchises the individuals from ICANN processes. Why should the individual Internet user support this structure?
When I asked earlier, I had thought the European group was including individual participants.
Why the rush? --Wendy
At 08:21 AM 3/28/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear European Colleagues:
For those who are not physically present tomorrow, but would like to be one of the signers of the MoU, a procedure has been created for you.
PLEASE SEND IN AS BELOW NOT LATER THAN 1700 THURSDAY 29TH MARCH 2007
PLEASE NOTE: There will be a way, as provided by the MoU, to be determined by the EURALO, for ALSes to consent to be bound by the MoU at a later date.
Simply send to me, copied to the list, the following form of words, with the name of your organisation in place of the brackets, and as required directly below the sentence:
-------
I hereby consent for [INSERT ORGANISATION FULL NAME] to be bound by the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Signing Organisations in the European Region as if I were personally signing the document.
Name Organisational Title Date
---- Note that I have attached the signature text of the MoU in the current version. Signatory information will change as the day goes on and I receive additional signatories' information.
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
The MAC discussed at length all the questions you mention below. The MAC came to the conclusion that individuals should and can have a voice in ICANN and it made suggestions how this can be achieved. Dear Jeanette,
As I said, if any commitee, working groups or other body has produced a report, it might be very helpful if you could forward a pointer to it. It would save us a lot of time to not have to make the same research again.
From what I read on http://www.icann.org/committees/membership/commentary-26may99.htm and other documents, these are more position statements than practical suggestions to address the issues that were already raised 8 years ago. I could now find a final report, though, but information is sometimes hard to find on the ICANN web site. And now we should start all over again with the question whether or not this makes sense? I am not questioning if we should accept individual users or not. The question is HOW we do it. I find this discussion immensely frustrating. I agree. Going forward, I would suggest that those who have worked on the question in the past inform the newcomers here on the history: was has been done and what remains to be done, in their view.
Patrick
Hi, I can find only the singapore report from that committee. The URLs on the ICANN website don't work anymore: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/macsing.html This gives you a good view of the discussions regarding at large membership in the late 90s. Wendy who was involved in the MAC might have the final report. Two other studies were conducted by the ICANN commissioned ALSC [At Large Study Committee] in 2001: Final Report on ICANN At-Large Membership: http://www.atlargestudy.org/final_report.shtml and by NAIS [NGO and Academic ICANN Study] in 2001: http://www.naisproject.org/report/final/ My sense is that the longer individuals have no equal rights in this process, the less likely it is that they will ever get them. jeanette Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
The MAC discussed at length all the questions you mention below. The MAC came to the conclusion that individuals should and can have a voice in ICANN and it made suggestions how this can be achieved. Dear Jeanette,
As I said, if any commitee, working groups or other body has produced a report, it might be very helpful if you could forward a pointer to it. It would save us a lot of time to not have to make the same research again.
From what I read on http://www.icann.org/committees/membership/commentary-26may99.htm and other documents, these are more position statements than practical suggestions to address the issues that were already raised 8 years ago. I could now find a final report, though, but information is sometimes hard to find on the ICANN web site.
And now we should start all over again with the question whether or not this makes sense? I am not questioning if we should accept individual users or not. The question is HOW we do it. I find this discussion immensely frustrating. I agree. Going forward, I would suggest that those who have worked on the question in the past inform the newcomers here on the history: was has been done and what remains to be done, in their view.
Patrick
participants (3)
-
Jeanette Hofmann -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Wolfgang Kleinwächter