Quick note – given the current state of the criteria, I personally found
Telecommunities Canada on the borderline and I nearly voted against, but
decided to, like cricket umpires, give the batsman the benefit of the doubt
on a close call. This is why it’s necessary to get the criteria done. Alan
made his views very clear in an email to the community – even though there
is no requirement to explain one’s vote.
But wrt the governmental and commercial issue – this is VERY important to
some places (it’s even life and death serious), and we have to include it in
some way. The European concern was very much against allowing commercial
interests to have a foothold.
The ICANN At Large Is global, and we can’t just leave all the criteria to
the RALOs to work in isolation, cause we have to have some sort of
consistency for the ICANN At Large as a whole, while still taking local
concerns into account. So we all have to compromise and work to find a
formulation that addresses the concerns of ALL the regions. I hope that the
NA region will begin to look beyond local issues and consider the issues in
their global context. As we know, the Internet is (and its issues are)
borderless. We get information from all the regions, including countries in
which ALSes do not yet formally exist, and those also have to be taken into
account. This structure isn’t just for the 100 ALSes that currently exist,
but also for the ones to come.
And from the debate, it’s obvious why there is a need for nomcom members who
are not directed by individual ALS interests. (BTW - For full disclosure,
I’m a member of 2 ALSes, but I don’t function as an ALS rep – again
obviously)
I will look for all the links for the archives for the various emails in
which the criteria document was posted and let you know, but not now as I am
still not feeling well and have a long and busy day tomorrow. However if you
look at the Lisbon wiki pages, the criteria document is posted there, and it
was discussed at the public meeting in Lisbon, printed out in multiple
languages for the people present, (dial in access was available and Danny at
least from what I remember, used the facility at that meeting) as well as
on the san juan pages (for quite a while now). It’s also been linked on at
least 2 of the ALAC meeting pages (teleconferences at which it was
discussed) for quite a while in advance of the teleconferences.
Jacqueline
From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:40 PM
To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members
Hi Jacqueline,
First of all, THANK YOU so much for taking the time to write the stuff
below. I really appreciate the clarification on some points that were a
little hazy to me. I know how busy you've been at this event so I am doubly
appreciative of you taking the time to type this all out.
Secondly, though, I would like to differ from you on some points. Its not
like Alan, out of the kindness of his hear, offered to form that wording.
It was how he fealt and an opinion he has been putting forward for at least
since he voted "no" to Telecommunities Canada. He has made his opinion on
this clear.
Also, if he and, frankly, all five of you, are supposed to be representing
global interests, then what accountability measures are used? How do you
know that your opinion is global in scope? There were several regions that
his measures went critically against their best interests (Asia/Pacific, EU
& NA). How is that thinking on "a global context"?
Finally, if this document has been being circulated for a long time, why IS
this the first that we've seen on it? Do we get no say whatsoever on this
matter except by chance and at the very end?
Jacqueline, I've fired off these question to "you" but in no way mean them
for just you (or as any kind of attack). I am meaning them as general
questions for critical thinking of this process. I think that you are doing
a great job over-all and truly appreciate all of the time and hard work that
you have been volunteering to this process.
Darlene
_____
From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com]
Sent: Tue 6/26/2007 4:13 PM
To: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members
Hi Darlene
The way the structure was set up is that there are 10 regional
representatives on the ALAC. 2 are voted for from each region. The other 5
are global committee members, appointed by the Nominating Committee from
people in each of the 5 regions. Their job isn’t to represent the members
of the region, but to look after the global interests. So those current
NomCom members are:
Alan, Alice, Siavash, Annette and myself. LAC, Asia Pacific and Africa will
be ending their terms at the AGM in LA. NomCom will announce the new 3 names
before that.
As a NomCom appointee, I would say that we are answerable to the global
internet community in general who are not covered by the RALOs – we are
from the region, but looking at issues in a more global context. At least
that’s the idea I was given when I was picked, and that’s how I operate on
the committee.
To be fair, the wording that Alan had put into the document came out of a
long ongoing discussion - Alan volunteered to draft this one of the
positions, as you can see it was a big topic for Annette and some others.
Other positions have been also put forward in discussion from LAC and Africa
who have a lot of govt-private partnerships and MSH partnerships, especially
during and after WSIS. What we try to do is get a position that works for
ALL the regions, as we have to have a global perspective. This document was
also circulated over the past 5 months without any comment, and most
recently by Alan himself prior to San Juan, in an attempt to force some more
discussion on the concepts.
You guys came in almost at the end of the discussion without having heard
the various things said by loads of other people over a long time in a lot
of meetings, so a lot of background was missing for you, I think.
Also – I think you misunderstood - ICANN is not revisiting the entire
structure – the bylaws mandate review by an external agency of all ICANN
structures on a rotating basis. It may seem strange that the review happens
just as the Interim ALAC is ending, but as Paul Towmey said – the review can
focus on the forward looking parts, and the NEXT ALAC review can focus on
the functioning of the RALOs after they have been in operation for a while.
(This was also discussed with the Board and with the President in Lisbon –
but I realize that it is difficult to wade through all the minutes and
recordings of previous meetings in order to get up to speed if you are new -
I went through it myself 2 years ago)
So it is unlikely that ICANN will revisit the structure before the next
review in 3 + years. The task of the Interim ALAC was to set up the RALOS.
The bylaws mandate tasks for the ALAC as well, once the RALOs are formed. So
we have finished one job, and have to start the other.
We have had 3 morning coordination meetings to plan for the main AtLarge
Committee Public meeting on Thursday, as we have found that if we don’t
prepare, the public meeting where we take decisions and do consultation goes
on for ever. These meetings are not an attempt to push through decisions
without consultation, but to do the background work to have items on the
agenda in the public meeting and to have worked though most of the main
problems that may prevent proper discussion and decision – if Legal needs to
give an opinion, we have it, if something needs explanation from Finance, we
have that staff person on hand to explain, etc., etc.
In some of the past meetings the coordination meetings were after 6, and we
went until after 10 pm at times. So the ALAC agreed that early morning was
the most efficient time to do this, before the other stuff we had to do. We
have generally been really good on time, but today was a really bad
exception, probably because the purpose of the meeting was not understood by
all the people in the room. Today the job was to get information from the
Secretariats for Nick to develop options on the flowsheet for presentation
in the public meeting – not to make any decision on the flowsheet.
Similarly with the criteria – the meeting was to finish a potential document
for presentation to and discussion at the public meeting on Thursday. All
the ALSes will be there then. Robert asked for a few of you to be able to
attend as you could give assistance on the wording of some bits that we
were having problems with yesterday. If it were to be a full discussion
meeting, I would have made sure that ALL the ALSes were in the room,
especially the LACRALO ALSes as well as NA – they weren’t, because that
wasn’t the purpose of the meeting. They have the documents, and they will
raise their points on Thursday, and we will also have feedback from the
other regions present.
One of the main problems with the ICANN meetings is lack of time. We try to
do a lot online before, and to be as efficient as possible in our meetings
with the number of other meetings and panels that we need to do, so we are
sometimes not as patient with revisiting things for new people as we could
be.
I would suggest that the best way to prepare to participate effectively
would be to go over the agendas in advance (all on the wiki), comment (on
the wiki) and get the background of the items that are on the agenda before
the meeting starts. If anyone needs stuff I can explain and locate documents
etc, or any other ALAC members or ALS members who have been around before –
LACRALO is here and Erick has been around a LOOOONG time and some members
of the other regions are also here and can help you get up to speed on some
of the issues that we will be discussing.
Jacqueline
From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@gov.nu.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:13 PM
To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members
Hi all,
I must say, I'm learning a ton of stuff here in San Juan. One of which, is
that I had always thought that we had 3 ALAC members representing our region
and that is not, in fact, the case. We have two, who we have just elected
being Robert and Beau. Alan "has no obligation" (his words) to forward any
of our causes.
I found this interesting because, some time ago, we had a huge discussion on
this list (which I do not mean to re-open) on whether orgs-of-orgs (ICANN
calls them "Umbrella Organizations") and their member orgs can apply to
become ALSs. We had concensus on this topic, in fact the vast majority gave
their consent. At yet, Alan Greenburg actually put in contrary wording to
this in the ALAC Proposed Guide to ALS Application Evaluation which would
have prevented this, namely (and I quote):
"Where an Umbrella Organisation applies and is accepted for membership, its
constituent member organizations may not be accredited as ALSes. If members
of an Umbrella Organisation are already accredited as ALSes, and they wish
to retain their accreditation, the Umbrella Organisation’s application would
not be approved."
We were extremely fortunate to have Robert there as he circulated this
document amongst several of us here that would have been negatively impacted
by this and arranged to have us speak to the ALAC to have this wording
removed.
It is also interesting that, up until this time, it was a fairly major
responsibility of ALAC to assist in the formation of the five regions. Now
it seems that ICANN is revisiting the entire structure. We may wish to
discuss how we would like to see this structure work. I am wondering why we
only get to select 2 of the 3 regional ALAC reps. If the third one is not
actually forwarding OUR causes, then what is the point? Why does ICANN
reserve the right to select these people if, really, they are not answerable
to any group?
I must say, we are very fortunate to have both Robert and Beau on the
committee. They have been working unbelievably hard already (meetings at
7:30 AM most days, having to stand up and speak although totally new,
running like crazy and organizing things).
Thank you, Robert and Beau,
Darlene
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007
8:33 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007
8:33 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007
8:33 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007
8:33 AM
