- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

NA conference call ?
by Mr. Robert Guerra May 24, 2007

May 24, 2007

As new ALS's have recently joined from the NA region, might I suggest a regional conference call be scheduled. The purpose of the call would be to have a round of introductions of the ALS's and a presentation of the different topics being discussed at a regional level on the NA list. I believe a call would be constructive in building community and bring an understanding on the viewpoints that exist (which may, or not agree). As for a date - let me suggest a call on or before the first week in June. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377

7 7

Re: [NA-Discuss] Staff Review of Draft MoU Terms
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 24, 2007

May 24, 2007

The version of the MoU was as of the date of the document - 16th May; see the top right-corner. I have attached the text as at that time. On 24/05/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > What version of the draft was reviewed, and why were some but not all of > the reviewed provisions quoted in the text? Without either of those > pieces of information, it is difficult to respond to the comments. > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > Dear North American community: > > > > As promised, I've attached the review of the terms of the MoU from > > ICANN's perspective. I hope it is useful in your deliberations and if > > there are any questions please don't hesitate to ask. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > --- > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > Draft Operating Principles: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > Draft Code of Conduct: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 > Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 23, 2007

May 23, 2007

Danny, a point on this subject, for my edification if it isn't too much trouble. When the ICANN Bylaws refer to the NCUC in Article X, S5(1)(d), it states: e. Non-Commercial Users (representing the full range of non-commercial entity users of the Internet If one looks at the normal meaning of these words, I would take from it that the NCUC was designed to represent not individual Internet users, but non-commercial legally-constituted (or even not legally constituted) ENTITIES in a comprehensive way. Of course, this would apply to NGOs, and could apply to any NGO, but was that the design of this constituency? I gather that the original idea was that this was for the universities where the Internet was once managed, and other organisations of that type. This is of course not by way of saying that anyone should be excluded - on the contrary - just that it seems you are suggesting that we all blur the lines between individual Internet users' representatives (At-Large) and everyone else non-commercial (NCUC) very considerably. Is that actually beneficial? If you were to do that, then you would end up with duplicative structures, surely? Or are you actually advocating that the two constituencies should be merged together? I very much hope this does not launch a lot of disgruntlement or disagreeableness as that's far from the point (and I fail to see how it would actually bring much benefit) - I'm asking genuine questions here, not presuming the answers (I don't think). On 22/05/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > So why not do the right thing and refer them instead > to the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)? > > > --- Luc Faubert <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca> wrote: > > > Alan, > > > > Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate. > > > > >From what I understand of the history behind the > > wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes > > should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection > > against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this > > kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as > > these are sometimes the only orgs with the human > > resources to invest in the demanding task of > > following ICANN-related activites. > > > > Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as > > another org of orgs from Canada has applied for > > certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC > > in French-speaking Québec). > > > > Regards, > > > > > > _________________________________________ > > Luc Faubert > > Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du > > changement / > > IT governance and change management consulting > > +1 514 236 5129 > > www.LucFaubert.com > > www.LucFaubert.com/blog > > www.isoc.qc.ca > > www.ccig.ca > > www.uqbm.qc.ca > > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)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 > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

5 9

Individuals and Organizations
by Bret Fausett May 23, 2007

May 23, 2007

Since the topic has come up on the list once or twice over the last few days, I thought I might share some history about the creation of the ALAC as an "Organization of Organizations composed of Individuals." That's not a structure that one might choose if starting from scratch, and since it's not at all obvious why it came to be, I thought I'd share my recollection of events. Some of you know this background information already, but it may be of interest to those who are new to the ALAC and the RALOs. Once upon a time, back in 1998 when ICANN was created, ICANN was supposed to have 19 members of its Board of Directors. 9 would be elected by "Supporting Organizations" (3 from each of the domain name community, the IP address community, and the technical/standards community). 9 "At Large Directors" also would be elected by individual Internet users from around the world. And, finally, ICANN's President would have a seat on the Board. The group that incorporated ICANN seeded it with 9 "Initial" Directors, intending that they oversee the formation of the organization and step down when new Directors were elected to replace them. Within the first year of ICANN's existence, the three "supporting organizations" each elected their three Directors, bringing the total on ICANN's Board to 19, but the initial Directors stayed on until the new "At Large" Directors could be elected to replace them. But ICANN wasn't quite sure how to elect these 9 "At Large" Directors, so it tasked various advisory committees to study the issue. In early 2000, after close to two years of debate and study, the ICANN Board decided to hold global online elections. Given the uncertainties of the process and the fear of election fraud or gaming, the ICANN Board decided not to put half of its seats up for grabs in one election. Rather than electing 9 "At Large" Directors, it decided to elect only 5. In the summer of 2000, over 76,000 people signed up to vote in ICANN's online elections. After a few weeks of campaigning, five new Directors were elected in online elections overseen by the Carter Center. (You can see the archives here: http://members.icann.org/) Following the election, the ICANN Board tasked a blue ribbon committee, chaired by former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, to review the elections and determine what worked, what failed, and make recommendations for going forward. Some of the issues that the committee considered were "who is an individual internet user?", "how do you authenticate individual internet users for voting purposes?", and "how do you record votes in a secure manner not susceptible to fraud?" At the end of this study, the Bildt Committee issues a comprehensive set of recommendations about how to conduct online elections for ICANN Board seats. (See, http://atlargestudy.org/) Rejecting the advice of both the Bildt Committee and other groups that had examined the same issue (http://www.naisproject.org/) the ICANN Board decided that figuring out how to conduct online elections was far outside ICANN's mandate, and the subject was distracting it from doing the real work that it needed to do. Accordingly, it decided that the terms of the "At Large Directors" would end and that it would move to a Nominating Committee approach to elect the balance of its Directors. Many of the people who had studied online elections and campaigned for an At Large presence, however, were not content to allow the Board to end At Large participation altogether. The efforts of people like Esther Dyson, Roberto Gaetano, Vittorio Bertola, Wendy Seltzer, Andy Mueller-Maguhn, Izumi Aizu, Adam Peake, and Jeannette Hoffman convinced the Board that it needed to retain an At Large presence. What the Board agreed to do was sidestep the troublesome issues of "who is an individual Internet user" and "how do you authenticate individuals" by substituting existing organizations in the place of individuals. The logic was that organizations that existed for purposes other than ICANN presumably would have verified their members, through membership fees, fund-raising contributions, physical presence or some other means. ICANN would borrow and build upon the efforts of legitimate organizations to build its At Large membership. This was the original thinking behind the idea that At Large Structures be organizations where individuals predominate; it's basically a fudge for authentication and verification of individuals. Bret

2 1

Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application
by Luc Faubert May 22, 2007

May 22, 2007

Hi Alan, May I ask why you voted NO for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application? Telecommunities Canada is one of the (if not the) foremost organizations doing work related to the Internet in Canada. TC has been working tirelessly for almost 15 years, advancing the cause of Internet use and penetration in Canada. Regards, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca

9 13

Re: [NA-Discuss] NCUC and MoU orgs?
by Jacqueline A. Morris May 22, 2007

May 22, 2007

Hi Milton Sorry - I probably misunderstood Danny's comment that "NCUC Charter deems ineligible those organizations that provide services under MoU with ICANN." I took it in the context of his email to mean that the charter prohibited being both an ALS/RALO member and a NCUC member. If there is room for discussion and clarification - that's great (it's what I understood in Lisbon, and why we've created an ALAC/NCUC liaison.) and we can and should go ahead with our action item to become more closely linked. BTW- ALSes don't HAVE to sign the MoU, but RALO members do. Sorry again - my tone had more to do with being tired than with anything else. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:46 PM To: 'Luc Faubert'; 'Roberto Gaetano'; Jacqueline Morris; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Danny Younger' Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'NA Discuss'; carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com Subject: Re: NCUC and MoU orgs? I don't see how you can say "that's that". I told Danny that there is nothing necessarily preventing an organization from being in ALAC and NCUC at the same time. There is some ambiguity about being an ALS at the same time. But the interpretation of the NCUC charter provision is not entirely clear in this case. The charter provision was intended to prevent NCUC members from having a conflict of interest; if they are paid by and accountable to ICANN the organization it is not suitable for them to also be independently formulating policy that governs ICANN. It is not clear to me that ALS's are paid by and accountable to ICANN; they also may be intended to be independent policy formulation bodies. It's not clear. >>> "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> 5/22/2007 1:17 PM >>> Ok So that's that unless the NCUC changes its charter... it's either/or. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:18 AM To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Luc Faubert'; 'Alan Greenberg' Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application Hi Roberto, If Communautique (as an org of orgs) will not meet the ALS criteria per the ICANN bylaws, then why leave them out in the cold? It would certainly be better to suggest to them that they can possibly find a home in the NCUC. With regard to "nothing prevents both things to happen at the same time", that may not be true. In fact, I am currently in discussions with Milton Mueller over this issue as the NCUC Charter deems ineligible those organizations that provide services under MoU with ICANN. --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> wrote: > Because, as noted half a million times already, the > NCUC is a constituency > of the GNSO, while the ALAC is an Advisory Committee > of the Board, and they > have two distinct roles. Therefore, it would be up > to the organization > itself to decide whether they want to have a > (voting) position, limited to > GNSO matters, or a (advisory, non voting) position, > related to the whole > spectrum of ICANN activities. Of course, nothing > prevents both things to > happen at the same time. > > Incidentally, may I note that, to the best of my > knowledge, nobody ever went > to the NCUC list to suggest that current members of > that constituency move > *instead* to ALAC, even if most of them would indeed > qualify. > > Feel free to forward to NA discuss. > > Cheers, > Roberto > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On > Behalf Of > > Danny Younger > > Sent: 22 May 2007 15:21 > > To: Luc Faubert; Alan Greenberg > > Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss > > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO > vote for > > TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application > > > > So why not do the right thing and refer them > instead to the > > Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)? > > > > > > --- Luc Faubert <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca> wrote: > > > > > Alan, > > > > > > Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate. > > > > > > >From what I understand of the history behind > the > > > wording to the effect that orgs certified as > ALSes should be > > > user-driven, it was meant as a protection > against lobbying > > groups. It > > > would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of > orgs out of the > > > process, as these are sometimes the only orgs > with the > > human resources > > > to invest in the demanding task of following > ICANN-related > > activites. > > > > > > Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, > as another org of > > > orgs from Canada has applied for certification > > (Communautique, an org > > > a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec). > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________ > > > Luc Faubert > > > Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du > changement / IT > > > governance and change management consulting > > > +1 514 236 5129 > > > www.LucFaubert.com > > > www.LucFaubert.com/blog > > > www.isoc.qc.ca > > > www.ccig.ca > > > www.uqbm.qc.ca > > > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ______________________ > > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate > > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. > > > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l > ists.icann.org > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NCUC and MoU orgs?
by Roberto Gaetano May 22, 2007

May 22, 2007

Milton, You might want to give a try to convince Danny that after all, ALAC and NCUC are natural allies and it would be better to have a common strategy instead of making it difficult to coexist. You might be aware that Karen Banks, past representative of NCUC, is now in the Board of EURALO. ALAC does not raise any problem in her playing a leadership role in both parts of the organization (provided that we remain within the Bylaws). We (ALAC and NCUC) are on the minority side in a struggle that sees commercial interests outnumber our forces: I am always convinced that a conflict between ALAC and NCUC would only have the effect of render both weaker and less effective. Cheers, Roberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] > Sent: 22 May 2007 19:46 > To: 'Luc Faubert'; 'Roberto Gaetano'; Jacqueline Morris; > 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Danny Younger' > Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'NA Discuss'; carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com > Subject: Re: NCUC and MoU orgs? > > I don't see how you can say "that's that". I told Danny that > there is nothing necessarily preventing an organization from > being in ALAC and NCUC at the same time. There is some > ambiguity about being an ALS at the same time. But the > interpretation of the NCUC charter provision is not entirely > clear in this case. The charter provision was intended to > prevent NCUC members from having a conflict of interest; if > they are paid by and accountable to ICANN the organization it > is not suitable for them to also be independently formulating > policy that governs ICANN. It is not clear to me that ALS's > are paid by and accountable to ICANN; they also may be > intended to be independent policy formulation bodies. It's not clear. > > >>> "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> > 5/22/2007 1:17 PM > >>> >>> > Ok > So that's that unless the NCUC changes its charter... it's either/or. > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:18 AM > To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Luc Faubert'; 'Alan Greenberg' > Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'NA Discuss' > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for > TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application > > Hi Roberto, > > If Communautique (as an org of orgs) will not meet the ALS > criteria per the ICANN bylaws, then why leave them out in the > cold? It would certainly be better to suggest to them that > they can possibly find a home in the NCUC. > > With regard to "nothing prevents both things to happen at the > same time", that may not be true. In fact, I am currently in > discussions with Milton Mueller over this issue as the NCUC > Charter deems ineligible those organizations that provide > services under MoU with ICANN. > > > --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > Because, as noted half a million times already, the > > NCUC is a constituency > > of the GNSO, while the ALAC is an Advisory Committee > > of the Board, and they > > have two distinct roles. Therefore, it would be up > > to the organization > > itself to decide whether they want to have a > > (voting) position, limited to > > GNSO matters, or a (advisory, non voting) position, > > related to the whole > > spectrum of ICANN activities. Of course, nothing > > prevents both things to > > happen at the same time. > > > > Incidentally, may I note that, to the best of my > > knowledge, nobody ever went > > to the NCUC list to suggest that current members of > > that constituency move > > *instead* to ALAC, even if most of them would indeed > > qualify. > > > > Feel free to forward to NA discuss. > > > > Cheers, > > Roberto > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On > > Behalf Of > > > Danny Younger > > > Sent: 22 May 2007 15:21 > > > To: Luc Faubert; Alan Greenberg > > > Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss > > > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO > > vote for > > > TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application > > > > > > So why not do the right thing and refer them > > instead to the > > > Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)? > > > > > > > > > --- Luc Faubert <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > Alan, > > > > > > > > Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate. > > > > > > > > >From what I understand of the history behind > > the > > > > wording to the effect that orgs certified as > > ALSes should be > > > > user-driven, it was meant as a protection > > against lobbying > > > groups. It > > > > would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of > > orgs out of the > > > > process, as these are sometimes the only orgs > > with the > > > human resources > > > > to invest in the demanding task of following > > ICANN-related > > > activites. > > > > > > > > Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, > > as another org of > > > > orgs from Canada has applied for certification > > > (Communautique, an org > > > > a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec). > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________ > > > > Luc Faubert > > > > Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du > > changement / IT > > > > governance and change management consulting > > > > +1 514 236 5129 > > > > www.LucFaubert.com > > > > www.LucFaubert.com/blog > > > > www.isoc.qc.ca > > > > www.ccig.ca > > > > www.uqbm.qc.ca > > > > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > ______________________ > > > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate > > > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. > > > > > > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l > > ists.icann.org > > > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > > > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > ______________ > ________ > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l > ists.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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release > Date: 5/21/2007 > 2:01 PM > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release > Date: 5/21/2007 > 2:01 PM > >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ?
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 22, 2007

May 22, 2007

To follow on from my previous intervention in answer to this question, the definition of 'present and voting' which is internationally recognised is to count those who vote yes or no, not abstentions. On 15/05/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > There is no recognised voting system in the international world which > > I am aware of which counts abstentions as votes. This is also true in > > the corporate world. > > As I understood the predetermined process, we were seeking consensus, > not vote, and 70% of those present, not a majority of voters. > > --Wendy > > > > As background, I can make these statements not only based upon 20 > > years of working with international organisations and participating in > > treaty making conferences, but also because I have recently read the > > authoritative work on rules of procedure of international conferences > > and standing committees of international organisations, and gone > > through the UNGA rules, the UN Model Rules, and the ECOSOC rules in > > order to come up with draft rules of procedure for At-Large meetings. > > > > It would be unwise to go against all established precendents and count > > abstentions as votes. If you were to do that, it would be very easy to > > argue that the vote counting method was not valid. > > > > This is also logical - if you think about it, counting abstentions as > > votes means that you are basically counting an abstention as a 'no' > > vote. If people meant to say 'No', they would have voted that way. > > Indeed, a number of voters in this election have specifically said > > that they were abstaining because they didn't have time to properly > > analyse the situation and didn't feel comfortable voting either way. > > This sensible approach should not be used to turn their vote into a > > 'no' vote. > > > > On 15/05/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > >> Mr. Robert Guerra wrote: > >> > Wendy: > >> > > >> > I believe Luc posted a message with the results of the OP vote. let > >> > me find it.. > >> > > >> > > >> >> From: "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca> > >> >> Date: May 2, 2007 2:49:49 AM EDT (CA) > >> >> To: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro>, "All Accredited At > >> >> Large Structures ((ALS)) in the North AmericanRegion" <na- > >> >> als(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> >> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [NA-ALS] Voting Procedural Correction > >> >> > >> >> Here's a sheet with the current results for the vote on the OP. > >> >> > >> >> SUMMARY > >> >> Yes: 14 > >> >> No: 5 > >> >> Abstentions: 3 > >> >> Didn't vote: 2 > >> > > >> > Not sure how to treat the abstentons & non voters. So, i'll assume i > >> > can just add the yea's and nea's..Total # of votes -19 (14+5). Doing > >> > the math - Votes in favor = 73 %, opposed 26%. > >> > >> I'd count abstentions in the total, we didn't reach 70% of the total, > >> and thus fail. > >> > >> If we can't get 70% for the OP, they shouldn't be Operative. > >> > >> --Wendy > >> > >> > > >> > Our criteria for approving by rough consensus was set at 70%. as such > >> > we - seem to have adopted the OP by rough consensus. > >> > > >> > > >> > regards, > >> > > >> > Robert > >> > --- > >> > Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.org> > >> > Managing Director, Privaterra > >> > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 15-May-07, at 9:10 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > >> > > >> >> Robert Guerra wrote: > >> >>> I thought it would be a good idea to post a copy of the Formation > >> >>> Schedule found on our page on icannwiki. > >> >>> > >> >>> are we on track, on schedule? Two key questions - was the MoU > >> >>> adopted by rough consensus, and if so has it been received by icann > >> >>> legal for review? > >> >> As far as I know, no. I never even saw the results of the vote on the > >> >> Operating Principles. Were those adopted? > >> >> > >> >> But I don't think that deliberate speed is a problem. > >> >> > >> >> --Wendy > >> >> > >> >>> regards > >> >>> > >> >>> Robert > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> http://www.icannwiki.org/The_North_American_Regional_At- > >> >>> Large_Organization > >> >>> > >> >>> [snipped] > >> >>> > >> >>> Formation Schedule > >> >>> > >> >>> 2007.04.20: Certified ALSes and individual users name their 2 voting > >> >>> representatives forming the General Assembly (must be entered at > >> >>> NARALO Contacts) > >> >>> 2007.04.27: Members approve final version of NARALO Operating > >> >>> Principles (Draft) > >> >>> 2007.05.04: Members vote for Chair and Secretariat of NARALO > >> >>> 2007.05.11: Members approve final version of Memorandum of > >> >>> Understanding between NARALO and ICANN (Draft) > >> >>> 2007.05.14: MOU is sent to ICANN legal for approval > >> >>> 2007.05.14: The Chair opens the 30-day period for submission of > >> >>> Statements of Interest for the election of our 2 ALAC representatives > >> >>> 2007.05.25: ICANN legal approves MOU > >> >>> 2007.05.28: ICANN opens 21-day public comment period for NARALO MOU > >> >>> 2007.06.14: The Chair closes the 30-day period for submission of > >> >>> Statements of Interest for the election of our 2 ALAC representatives > >> >>> 2007.06.18: ICANN closes 21-day public comment period for NARALO MOU > >> >>> 2007.06.21: Members select 2 NARALO ALAC representatives > >> >>> 2007.06.25: ICANN and ALSes sign the MOU and seating of ALAC > >> >>> representatives in San Juan, Puerto Rico ICANN meeting > >> >>> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> NA-Discuss mailing list > >> >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- > >> >>> lists.icann.org > >> >>> --- > >> >>> Draft MoU with ICANN: > >> >>> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >> >>> > >> >>> Draft Operating Principles: > >> >>> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > >> >>> > >> >>> Draft Code of Conduct: > >> >>> http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > >> >> phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 > >> >> Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute > >> >> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > >> >> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > >> >> http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > NA-Discuss mailing list > >> > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >> > >> > --- > >> > Draft MoU with ICANN: > >> > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >> > > >> > Draft Operating Principles: > >> > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > >> > > >> > Draft Code of Conduct: > >> > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > >> phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 > >> Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute > >> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > >> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > >> http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NA-Discuss mailing list > >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >> > >> --- > >> Draft MoU with ICANN: > >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >> > >> Draft Operating Principles: > >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > >> > >> Draft Code of Conduct: > >> http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > >> > > > > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 > Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

7 11

Streamlining of email lists
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 22, 2007

May 22, 2007

Dear All: In the most recent meeting of the At-Large Advisory Committee, it was resolved to simplify the worldwide set of email lists and to delete the -ALS lists in each region, leaving only the -Discuss lists. This will be done today FYI. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada'sALS application
by Alan Greenberg May 22, 2007

May 22, 2007

Michael, without commenting on the relevance of ICANN's use of the term "individual user", I fail to see how the access modalities alter the concept of user. Most of my non-ICANN professional attention is on the developing world. The vast majority of people use some form of shared access, often a cyber cafe or a university lab. I don't understand why that disenfranchises them any more than it does a university student in Ohio or my 92 year old aunt if she uses her daughter's connection. The user is someone who uses the network. Now there are plenty of reasons to say that some shared access users, particularly those with low-bandwidth connections are being ignored and perhaps disenfranchised, but in my mind, ICANN's user definition does not seem to be one of them. Alan At 5/22/2007 02:13 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >I must say that I really do find this notion of "individual Internet >users" as somehow being the basic level of Internet access/use >granularity really quite culture (geography/ideology) bound... > >As I said in an earlier extended exchange on this, for most of the world >the basic level of Internet access/use is not "the individual" user but >rather some form of hybrid collaborative/collective use/user whether >through family use, telecenter use, even multiple semi-anonymous use in >cybercafes. > >That this notion was written into the ICANN bylaws simply shows how >narrow was the group that was originally involved in the processes >through which those mechanisms were established. I don't have the time >or energy at the moment to launch a personal crusade around this issue >but perhaps we could at least recognize that those notions make only >marginal sense in practice and that even in the case of Canada and the >TC application, the reality of Internet use will need to expand to >include the group and the collective and that as I understand it is all >that TC is saying. > >MG > > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny >Younger >Sent: May 21, 2007 7:02 AM >To: Luc Faubert; Alan Greenberg >Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities >Canada'sALS application > > >Luc, > >The ICANN bylaws stipulate: > >The criteria and standards for the certification of >At-Large Structures shall be established in such a way >that participation by individual Internet users who >are citizens or residents of countries within the >Geographic Region of the RALO will predominate in the >operation of each At-Large Structure within the RALO > >Telecommunities Canada describes itself as a sort of >"holding company" comprised of multiple organizational >members whose activities predominate in the operation >of TC; individual Internet users (remember them?) are >not the predominant factors in TC's operation (per >their own admission). > >Alan was correct in rejecting their application. The >better question is why did others approve the >application that was deficient on its face? > > >--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert(a)conceptum.ca> wrote: > > > Hi Alan, > > > > May I ask why you voted NO for Telecommunities > > Canada's ALS application? > > > > Telecommunities Canada is one of the (if not the) > > foremost organizations > > doing work related to the Internet in Canada. TC has > > been working > > tirelessly for almost 15 years, advancing the cause > > of Internet use and > > penetration in Canada. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > _________________________________________ > > Luc Faubert > > Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du > > changement / > > IT governance and change management consulting > > +1 514 236 5129 > > www.LucFaubert.com > > www.LucFaubert.com/blog > > www.isoc.qc.ca > > www.ccig.ca > > www.uqbm.qc.ca > > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >.icann.org > > --- > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >____________Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business >gives you all the tools to get online. >http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting > >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >.icann.org >--- >Draft MoU with ICANN: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > >Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

1 0