Wendy and all, I am very much inclined to agree with your conclusions and observations stated below. I have been getting allot of feedback from our members that express similar views and observations that have reviewed the Draft statement. Additionally I personally found the Draft statement not to come even close to reflecting what has already been discussed vis a vi the NARALO and leaves out largely broad user participation, input, issues, and concerns that directly effect them and that they are aware of or have already been effected by with no real recourse to address such issues. It appears to me that the ALAC seems to be largely ignoring those concerns and issues and at times even chastising those that bring them to the attention of either ICANN, the GNSO, or the ALAC. Such does not lend itself to properly or even at all, addressing such issues and concerns which ICANN can have either an effect on or directly address. Wendy Seltzer wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I would be inclined to cut the attack on the reviewers' selection and focus on substantive disagreements and their failure to include all the options presented to them.
I know I recommended reverting to general at-large elections for board members, scrapping the intermediary of the ALS-RALO-ALAC structure, and I'm disturbed that they didn't even mention that among the alternatives. I would really have liked to see a thoughtful comparison to justify the heavyweight structures that require intensive participation, over lightweight voting and delegation to empowered representatives, but see none.
My chief concern with the ALAC has always been that it provides no reason fo rhte ordinary Internet user to get involved, despite the range of places where ICANN's mandate affects the Internet user. I don't think users should have to be intensively involved in issues of peripheral importance, but that shouldn't deprive them of a way to voice hteir opinions. Votes have always seemed to me like the natural way to bridge collective action problems, to express shallow but widely shared opinion. I understand that's not what ICANN chose, but it still seems flawed to ignore that baseline.
- --Wendy
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus.
Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night.
If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes.
- Evan
---------------------------------------------------------
NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community.
The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to.
The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance.
Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak.
Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional.
What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation.
For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency.
This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.
------ 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 ------
- -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFIXNVauuui10VsrVERAnnQAJdlY3GOxNSNu7uBorGAAQxJwd7tAJ9ItagS SnRyw5lqf7A80bNeNj6DFQ== =1ErH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------ 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 ------
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827