Jean Armour Polly wrote:
Hi, I don't want to speak for Wendy but as I recall that is exactly why she was proposing a bicameral idea, where the accredited ALS's would act as the "Senate" and *all* unaffiliated individual users would all be in the "House." The House would elect 2 "speakers" (if memory serves...) who would take two seats in the Senate with the accredited ALS's. (I'm sorry if I have not gotten this right.)
Pretty close. I was suggesting that two bodies be jointly responsible for the RALO: Everyone could join the "individuals' house," individual members of ALSs participating with equal footing with unaffiliated individuals. THe "organizational house" would have the 2 reps of each ALS, plus 2 from the non-affiliated individuals. Like the U.S. House and Senate, where individuals are represented through two different means (2 reps per state in the Senate, population-based representation in the House), the two chambers might have different ways of gathering Internet users' input, both of which would be valuable to the process. Lobbyists are individuals too, and the aim in the "individuals' house" would be to get them participating alongside unaffiliated individuals. There are many forms of capture, and offering two channels for involvement seems to me more likely to stave off more of them. --Wendy
Would it really matter if every unaffiliated Internet user in NA joined the "House"--including lobbyists--etc? I don't know why--because in the end the House only has 2 votes in the Senate. On the other hand, is there anything to stop anyone --including lobbyists-- from joining every accredited ALS? It seems like that would be a better route. That way, they could certainly multiply their influence, and every ALS gets two votes. But I don't want to be accused of trying to hold anything up. JP unaffiliated Internet user
At 9:27 AM -0400 5/28/07, Thompson, Darlene recently said:
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A12B.E653E425"
I agree.
All ALSs go through a process of "approval". What process do individuals have to go through to ensure that they are lobbyists or others that would be unattractive to our group. Unless we create some kind of umbrella group for the individuals that would act as a pseudo-ALS and they could police their own membership (this has been suggested before but I'm not sure by whom). We need some kind of wording clarifying what we would like this to look like.
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- 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)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/