Danny, It's a good approach. I support it. Louis Houle ISOC Québec P.S. Sorry for that late comment. I was out in a «no Internet land»! Danny Younger a écrit :
Beau, below are the comments that I just sent through to the BGC:
When I think about restructuring the GNSO I begin by asking myself, "What broad communities should rightfully have a seat at this table"?
As I look around I see four distinct communities that have a stake in the process:
1. Community: Providers of Registration and Connectivity Services a. Registries b. Registrars c. Resellers, Hosting Companies/ISPs
2. Community: Business a. Big Business & their Intellectual Property Attorneys b. Small Business & domainers
3. Community: Law Enforcement & Security Interests
4. Community: Public Interest a. Consumer Groups b. Civil Society Advocates i. Privacy ii. Freedom of Speech, etc. c. Registrant Rights Advocates
For the sake of simplicity, fairness and to minimize council size to create a more effective body, I would recommend 3 Council seats for each broad community.
Clearly, some constituent groups already exist as recognized entities while others would need to be formed. The ICANN Board has the authority to create new constituencies on its own motion. It should do so.
regards, Danny
--- "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
I don't support this approach.
I think we should ask for a deadline extension and try to get a new draft document that speaks specifically to our concerns. Based on my experience with the ALAC review process, the ICANN is looking for suggestions on the way things ought to be. I think the reaction to this type of statement will be very negative and won't get us what we really want, or, to be frank, what I really want, which is maximum user representation in all the ICANN power centers in equal proportion to registrars and others who have nothing more than financial stakes in how ICANN operates. Personally, I think this document should specifically suggest what it is we want, rather than be a declaration of our disassociation from the process. This will just reassure everyone that the at-large can't agree on anything and get its act together (of all the regions, we are the only ones to object to this document and the process, which is not something I necessarily agree with, but is a political reality).
Some of the other statements I have seen so far in this chain, which in a way I regret I sort of started, have made some suggestions in this vein. May I suggest NA RALO take a different approach, put together some of that specific feedback on the way we think things ought to work, ask for a deadline extension, and submit that.
Also, though Alan Greenberg is nomcom appointed and not elected, he's a good guy who gives a heck of a lot of his time and is, in my opinion, taking an unfair hit.
Beau
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Thompson, Darlene Sent: Thu 4/24/2008 9:40 AM To: Gareth Shearman; Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
I, too, support this version. Nice job Danny & Evan!
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gareth Shearman Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:57 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
I support this version.
Gareth
On 23-Apr-08, at 8:06 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here are my contributions to the statement. I
think this time, I may
have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for
the next 24-48
hours -- please work on this in my absense. ]
Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2
The North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) disassociates itself from the document submitted to the ICANN Board Governance Committee entitled "Joint users proposal GNSO structural change".
Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development
of
a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document
nor
afforded the opportunity to comment upon its
interim
drafts.
The document, in its final form, does not address
many
issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad
community of
registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders.
Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in
the
new GNSO formulation, despite the document's
preamble
which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN's
external
perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby
steps
towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a
focus
and catalyst for At-Large communications and
policy
development. To explicitly exclude it from a role
in
At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason.
The process used to create this document was
highly
objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not
communicated
at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or
RALOs.
It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these
changes
before the end of the comment period.
Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would
be
inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document.
It
does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs.
We ask the Board Governace Committee to respect
the
principle of representation set out in ICANN's MOU that called for technical management structures to reflect the global and functional diversity of Internet users and their needs
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists
.icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists
.icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
*** Scanned
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------