Works for me. Also, I am definitely agree with Evan's opinion of doing our absolute best to keep away from allowing people multiple votes. D ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Luc Faubert Sent: Sun 4/22/2007 10:10 AM To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps Here's another try at the definition, which by the way is for individual user delegates within NARALO -- not, as I stated in the earlier definition, for individual users per se. An NARALO individual user delegate must: - be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, - be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the North American region as defined by ICANN, - not be a member of a certified ALS, - not be the Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat, - not be employed by or have direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar. Another thing we have to determine is how long the mandate of individual users delegates lasts. I propose staggered one-year terms. _________________________________________ 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 Evan Leibovitch Sent: 21 avril 2007 21:56 To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list,
X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :)
I'd remove those three. I would only think of removing the middle one, of being a member of an ALS pending application approval. Being a member of such an ALS is really in limbo, as you have no real representation until the application is approved. At least people should be able to be part of an at-large group _until_ the application is approved.
I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. I do see that as a problem -- in fact I don't think it's too strong to use the term "corruption" to explictly allow double dipping through a 'none of the above' pseudo-ALS mechanism. It's a fundamental sham on democracy to give multiple votes to certain people simply because they know how to manipulate the system in their favour. This is grossly unfair to -- and a ultimately disincentive to -- the very outsiders this process is trying to attract.
After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already.
Most ALSs charge membership dues or have other rites of membership that provide a disincentive to multiple joining. Most ALSs have various diverse missions, of which ICANN concerns are only a part. And ALSs that apply simply for the purpose of giving people multiple points of ICANN access are apparently being (correctly IMO) rejected, according to Danny.
Regardless of how clever or valuable those already here feel they are, our primary goal (as I see it) is to interest and involve the public in this process, not give those already inside more ways in. If the attempt to reach new ALSs attracts those with significantly overlapping membership, I don't consider that progress. We want the greatest possible diversity of public involvement, not a recurring list of the "usual suspects", claiming to represent different interests. In my own mind this means that the RALO reps to ALAC are rotated as frequently as possible -- not because the existing ones are bad, but because we want the greatest possible breadth of involvement.
In any case, the situation Wendy describes is rare enough -- unless the ALS recruitment process really fouls up -- to be something that can be tolerated, but should not be explicitly encouraged. And we certainly don't want the internal "ad hoc" ALS to be an explicit enabler of this practice.
Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
Do we want to go as far as explictly requiring legal status for non-citizens (ie, landed immigrant, green card, etc.) or us "resident" (or maybe "permanent resident") sufficient?
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.]
That works for me.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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