I agree that: -Individuals should predominately represented -organizational membership within an ALS should be OK -this conversation is inflammatory -individual at-large membership should be either a) put into a subgroup or b) referred to an ALS -Randy Glass A@L On 4/19/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Thompson, Darlene ha scritto:
What is the benefit of saying "If JJ has gone to all that effort to explain that the bylaws don't mean what they say"? Such comments seem to me to be unnecessarily rude and inflammatory. Is it possible to keep the conversations in this list to a slightly more professional level?
The by-laws clearly state that orgs-of-orgs are allowed in plain English (see my last e-mail). However, if I am misreading them or if there is some other points that we should be considering, then lets discuss it. But PLEASE let's discuss these in an adult manner.
I was there when that section of the ICANN Bylaws was drafted. The original intent was to say that only organizations having individual members would be allowed, but then, thinking at the way many groups are organized (and especially ISOC chapters, which were the most common user group active in Internet governance at that time), it was realized that you would need to allow ALSes to have organizational members as well, even if for-profit entities (e.g. sponsors or supporting companies), as long as they weren't the ones who would actually determine the positions of the group. This is why the "predominate" language ended up in the Bylaws - to give some degree of flexibility for what regards actual structures.
However, we specifically designed the system with the ALAC (not ICANN staff) certifying ALSes, because we wanted to avoid the risk of capture or spin by ICANN; the At Large was to be free to make ultimate case by case determinations on whether certain organizations were predominantly participated by individual users.
Even if I'm quite sure that, when the Bylaws were drafted, the intended meaning was "no orgs of orgs", it is true that one could read them in a more flexible manner, and that, in the end, it is the attitude that was meant to count, not the form. Now we have an official opinion by the ICANN General Counsel to confirm this, but anyway I don't think that by opening up to organizations that regroup smaller groups of users we would be violating the Bylaws principle that "participation by individuals must predominate"; it all depends on whether, in the end, the grassroots participation and interests of individuals are reflected in the policies of the leadership.
This is an evaluation that should be done case by case by the ALAC - and I don't think that the ALAC would need Bylaws text to reject, say, an ISP! But for example, we already accredited entities who are involved in ccTLD management as well, because in Africa there's often just one small group of people doing everything related to Internet governance for policy and practice; so that's really an evaluation that needs to be done for each case.
It is a subjective evaluation that IMHO, if in doubt, should tend to be liberal rather than restrictive: if people feel that this is their home, and we don't see gross mismatch between their attitudes and those of a class of average Internet users, nor risk of capture (which is anyway getting smaller and smaller as the number of ALSes grows), then we should let them in. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org