From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>
Date: 26 June 2007 16:39:52 GMT-04:00
To: < jam@jacquelinemorris.com>, < na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: {Spam?} RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Members

Hi Jacqueline,
 
First of all, THANK YOU so much for taking the time to write the stuff below.  I really appreciate the clarification on some points that were a little hazy to me.  I know how busy you've been at this event so I am doubly appreciative of you taking the time to type this all out.
 
Secondly, though, I would like to differ from you on some points.  Its not like Alan, out of the kindness of his hear, offered to form that wording.  It was how he fealt and an opinion he has been putting forward for at least since he voted "no" to Telecommunities Canada.  He has made his opinion on this clear.

Perhaps you may want to re-read my answer to Luc on why I voted as I did. See http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2/000852.html .  I voted as I did primarily in light of the then-current interpretation of the Bylaws that had been used. I made it clear that I welcomed the opportunity to discuss new interpretations of the Bylaws, and that process is finally happening now.

In my post of June 16th ( http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2/001048.html ), I made it quite clear that I was agreeing that an organization that is composed of other organizations instead of (or in addition to) individual members was quite acceptable. I did feel that in such cases, we should not allow both the umbrella organization and the members to all be ALSs. That was my opinion when I wrote that note. I would have been quite happy to engage in a lively debate, but there were few comments overall, and only one regarding this particular point.

 
Also, if he and, frankly, all five of you, are supposed to be representing global interests, then what accountability measures are used?  How do you know that your opinion is global in scope?  There were several regions that his measures went critically against their best interests (Asia/Pacific, EU & NA).  How is that thinking on "a global context"?

Firstly, I somewhat disagree with Jacqueline regarding regional allegiances. Although (as I previously said) I believe my first priority must be ICANN and ALAC in general, I was selected by the NomCom as a NA resident, and I do my best to address issues that are relevant to that region. I do not know how to address your question about accountability other than I have no choice or desire but to stand on my record. If those around me feel I have not acted responsibly and to the benefit of ICANN, then I suppose I would not be re-appointed should I choose to run again. Do my opinions reflect a global scope? Perhaps - I certainly try, and I do have more experience working on a global level than some people do. Whether I succeed or not is not for me to say.

Perhaps you are blessed with more insight than I am. I proposed what I thought was a reasonable restriction, with the firm understanding that others might disagree and the final result could be that I convinced them that I was right, or they convinced me that they were right, or it would come to a vote and one of us would win. All of these outcomes are quite legitimate. As the discussion played out, others made their case and I decided to go along with them.
 
Finally, if this document has been being circulated for a long time, why IS this the first that we've seen on it?  Do we get no say whatsoever on this matter except by chance and at the very end?

I cannot say. I sent my comments and a link leading to Nicks original document to the At-Large list - the open list designated for discussions of interest to the global At-Large community. That is about as public as I could make it. I assumed that most people involved in the RALO process were subscribed, but I have no access to the list of individual subscribers, so there is no way for me to know exactly who is reading it. It would seem that at least some people involved in the NA-RALO read it, because I have seen posts from them on the list.

Regards, Alan

 
Jacqueline, I've fired off these question to "you" but in no way mean them for just you (or as any kind of attack).  I am meaning them as general questions for critical thinking of this process.  I think that you are doing a great job over-all and truly appreciate all of the time and hard work that you have been volunteering to this process.
 
Darlene