Interesting point "Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes." If we were to say "No" to the orgs-of-orgs then we are actually encouraging them to have each of their member organizations sign up individually which would give them an extraordinary increase to their weight in votes. Not to mention how much extra it will cost ICANN to bring each of those member organizations to any in face meetings. It seems to me that if those member orgs are all representing individuals then we should let the orgs-of-orgs in. It still enables us to do the work we are attempting to do. I would think that we should be inclusive rather than exclusive. Just my two cents for what its worth. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 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 Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:44 AM To: John L Cc: Michael Maranda; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items John L ha scritto:
Have these issues been resolved? When will they be resolved?
Beats me, the ombudsman sent an error riddled report to the board which is supposed to do something about it. Perhaps Vittorio knows where it stands.
The Board has to provide an answer to his recommendations by May 12 - that's where it is now.
I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted.
Nobody's disparaging their interest in involvement. Why are you bringing up this red herring? The problem is that they're asking to join the wrong piece of ICANN. If they wanted to join the GAC or the IP constituency, they wouldn't qualify there, either.
I'll take this de-lurking opportunity to explain that ICANN is in the process of reviewing the GNSO, and that the external reviewers pointed out that there might be some overlap of interests between the NCUC and the individual users represented through the At Large mechanism. The fact that several orgs-of-orgs now want to join the At Large might be another sign that there is an issue there, and the distinction between the two groups (which are in very different places in the ICANN structure anyway) might be revised, blurred or even eliminated. Basically, the principle of constituency building at ICANN has always been "you pick where you belong", until some constituencies were somewhat captured by the first comers and started to look for any kind of excuse to refuse further members. Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes. At this point in time, personally I don't think that it makes much of a difference whether an organization has individual members or not, provided that it is clear that in the end it works to the advantage of individual users. -- 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 .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP