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.icann.org
---
Draft
MoU with ICANN:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft
Operating Principles:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP