On 7/16/07, Dharma Dailey <dharma@ethoswireless.com> wrote:

Thanks for you thoughtful responses.   The big question for me is not
what can we do with ALAC or ICANN but how can we get more
communication for more people.  We haven't got our ducks in a row.
Until we determine what is useful to do  energy will fritter away and
nothing much will happen.

I've got one foot in the door of ICANN and the other out.   I'm
waiting to see what value there is in participating in this arena.
Yes maybe we can add value to ICANN's policy development process, but
will putting time-energy into that yield more than putting energy
into other areas?   Think .us, for example.

Even in terms of what's useful to do within ICANN, it seems that
there is very little consensus.   It would be good to get on the same
page.     It doesn't mean we all have to act in lock step, but
wouldn't it be nice to at least understand where others are coming
from, what they see as the priorities, and what they are willing to
work on?

The only item of consensus I see is that there seems to be universal
distaste for the current structure.   The reason everyone is sweating
the small stuff, in my opinion, is because ICANN is not clear what
our purpose is and neither are we.  One side or the other has to
square that up.

.  I prefer to consider what we want to accomplish, *then* what we
need to make it happen, rather than the other way around.  I would
prefer to see NA RALO say to ICANN, "This is what we are going to do,
this is what we want to do it," than be in the position of having
ICANN set the parameters for us of what we are able to do.
Especially since those parameters seem so fluid.   What Vittorio says
regarding ICANN responding to the pressure of outside actors is a
lesson for us here.   If you want to influence ICANN policy, a voting
seat on the board may not be as effective as outside action.

-Dharma

On Jul 14, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Hello Vittorio,
>
>> Just a technical note - all ICANN structures are subject to review
>> every three years (for example, the GNSO was reviewed last year, and
>> this year, in parallel to the ALAC review, the Nomcom is being
>> reviewed, and the Board will be up for review soon). This was
>> foreseen
>> in the Bylaws as a way to facilitate continue evolution of the
>> structures, and prevent ossification.
> Yes, but ALAC has only been in full operation (ie, all RALOs operating
> and sending elected representatives) for two weeks. This is not a
> three-year review, this is a six-month review at best.
>
> Having said that, I am not altogether upset with the timing given
> what I
> have seen with the current operation of ALAC ;-).
>
>> I'm quite sure that we wouldn't even have got the significant
>> increase
>> in funding, attention and importance that we've had in the last
>> two or
>> three years, if the hard work and credibility of the people in the
>> ALAC hadn't been complemented by a some external factors, and
>> particularly by the attempted "competition" by the ITU and by other
>> United Nations processes that challenged the role of ICANN, forcing
>> ICANN to increase its commitment to the public interest and to
>> broader
>> accountability, to rank better on the international scene.
>
> There are people on this list (you know who you are) who have
> experienced ICANN at its opaque worst, who believe that the whole ALAC
> process is a publicity stunt to appease the pressures you mention
> above.
> I certainly realize, as I mentioned before, many parts of ICANN wish
> that At-Large is "seen but not heard". That is, in their perfect world
> they benefit from the appearance of a public process without actually
> needing to listen to it.
>
> While I have often taken issue with the cynicism and defeatism in the
> way such issues have expressed on this list, the core of their
> argument
> has not been lost by us newcomers. (I certainly hope that was the
> impression Wendy took away from San Juan). Our challenge is to exploit
> the external pressures and whatever good intentions actually exist, so
> that ICANN cannot  just throw money at us but otherwise ignore what we
> have to say.
>
> The first step, of course, is having something of value to say. ALAC's
> obsessing over issues such as "how to appoint the chair" or how
> much to
> restrict ALS requirements are impediments and distractions from the
> most
> important work. Even our own debates on "enfranchising the individual
> participant" have taken on this characteristic, even though most
> people
> here are sympathetic. My greatest fear is that ALAC will get too
> comfortable with its existing level of influence obsessing with
> internal
> matters but producing little of its real mandate. Doing so will render
> it to no more than an agent of those who want to keep us silent. Busy
> and well funded, to be sure, but silent nonetheless.
>
> Somehow I am quite confident that we will not allow that silence to
> happen. :-)
>
> - Evan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss@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

_______________________________________________
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss@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