Wendy, We are 2 days away from the vote to ratify our Operating Principles. I don't think it is realistic to hope that we will agree on a revision of the basic format of NARALO in time for people to re-read, discuss and approve the OP for Friday. Nonetheless, as I told you already, I still find the concept intriguing (as does Bret, it seems) and am interested in discussing it. If people eventually agree on a change, we can always modify our OP with a vote at a later date, post San Juan. For the moment, unaffiliated users have still not selected their 2 voting delegates and the vote is Friday. Jean has submitted her candidacy as an unaffiliated user rep. Nobody else has come forward and I haven't seen any discussion among unaffiliated individuals on the subject, in spite of repeated calls to action. If individual users do not discuss among themselves, it's not even clear to me how representatives can be put in place in their name. For the moment at least, I guess it is fair to say that we are not muzzling any individuals and that we are not unduly ruling anybody out by postponing an eventual change in our format. Back to your suggestion... NA-Discuss is open to all, so anybody (member of an ALS or not) can join in the discussions on policy. Everybody is welcome, provided they abide by our Code of Conduct. You know this already, so I suppose you are suggesting this new format to give more formal influence to individuals over other NARALO affairs. I asked you the following on 04.19 but received no answer: ...and how would responsibilities be divided? Which of the forum or the GA would: - vote for the Chair, - choose the 2 ALAC reps, - set up task forces, - adopt/change the OP and MOU, - achieve consensus on policy comments? This was in response to:
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 19 avril 2007 23:04 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
I'm suggesting that we should have two decision-making components: one voting/consensus forum in which individuals can participate directly, and another, the GA, in which they are represented by a few of their number and through ALS representatives.
--Wendy
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 25 avril 2007 15:14 To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP
Individuals who joined an ALS would have two routes of influence, through their ALSs and individually. Those who did not would have one. I understand that those who have put themselves forward as ALSs might now want to talk only to other organizations, but I don't see how that advances the interests of the public at-large.
I don't want to devalue the ALSs, but I do want to empower the individuals within and outside them. --Wendy
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
One "house" of ALS reps and just 2 individuals; the other a gathering of individuals (the individual members of ALSs and anyone else who wants to join). It would be entirely possible that the organizational "house" would tend toward consensus, while the individual "house" brought out the diversity of individuals' interests, but both are things that ICANN needs to hear. Each could choose one ALAC rep, or they could join to reach consensus on both.
Disagreed.
Since the ALSs themselves are collectives, the "individual house" (which would be little more than a pseudo-ALS) should have no more status than any other single ALS.
Our own organisations already reflect a broad diversity of interests. I object to a process that would have the "none of the above" (NOTA) individuals to have more status than the membership of our group or any other ALS. As I've said before, it is discriminatory to the existing members of ALSs to have the individuals (of Wendy's proposed "individual house") given more influence on the process (ie, in the selection of ALAC reps).
Either of Wendy's proposed scenarios suggest such gross imbalance:
- "Each could choose one rep": that would mean that the NOTAs would have an equal representation to all of the conventional ALSs (and their combined collectives) put together
- ¨they could join to reach consensus on both": that would presume to give each member of the "individual house" a seat at the consensus table -- and by inference, the ability to scuttle a consensus -- equal to that of the REPRESENTATIVES of the ALSs.
The best way to maintain fairness in the process IMO is for ALAC to maintain a "pseudo ALS" for each region, that would accept as members any individuals seeking input that are not already members of an ALS. The pseudo-ALS would have similar status to any other ALS, and would be allowed to internally determine its own process to select to reps to the RALO.
Anything beyond that, which unfairly elevates the rights of non-ALS individual members, is to penalize the collective members of the ALS groups. This is not only anti-democratic but a disincentive to attracting the participation of other ALSs. Why incentive exists for an ALS to join, when its individual members can obtain greater influence by bypassing the process?
- Evan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis
ts.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@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1856 287203 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute 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/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-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