On 4/25/07, Luc Faubert < LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:

Wendy,

We are 2 days away from the vote to ratify our Operating Principles. I don't think it is realistic to hope that we will agree on a revision of the basic format of NARALO in time for people to re-read, discuss and approve the OP for Friday.

Nonetheless, as I told you already, I still find the concept intriguing (as does Bret, it seems) and am interested in discussing it. If people eventually agree on a change, we can always modify our OP with a vote at a later date, post San Juan.

For the moment, unaffiliated users have still not selected their 2 voting delegates and the vote is Friday. Jean has submitted her candidacy as an unaffiliated user rep. Nobody else has come forward and I haven't seen any discussion among unaffiliated individuals on the subject, in spite of repeated calls to action. If individual users do not discuss among themselves, it's not even clear to me how representatives can be put in place in their name. For the moment at least, I guess it is fair to say that we are not muzzling any individuals and that we are not unduly ruling anybody out by postponing an eventual change in our format.

Back to your suggestion...

NA-Discuss is open to all, so anybody (member of an ALS or not) can join in the discussions on policy. Everybody is welcome, provided they abide by our Code of Conduct. You know this already, so I suppose you are suggesting this new format to give more formal influence to individuals over other NARALO affairs.

I asked you the following on 04.19 but received no answer:

...and how would responsibilities be divided? Which of the forum or the GA would:

- vote for the Chair,
- choose the 2 ALAC reps,
- set up task forces,
- adopt/change the OP and MOU,
- achieve consensus on policy comments?

This was in response to:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto: wendy@seltzer.com]
> Sent: 19 avril 2007 23:04
> To: Luc Faubert
> Cc: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
>
> I'm suggesting that we should have two decision-making
> components: one voting/consensus forum in which individuals can
> participate directly, and another, the GA, in which they are
> represented by a few of their number and through ALS representatives.
>
> --Wendy

_________________________________________
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 Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: 25 avril 2007 15:14
> To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP
>
> Individuals who joined an ALS would have two routes of
> influence, through their ALSs and individually.  Those who
> did not would have one.
>  I understand that those who have put themselves forward as
> ALSs might now want to talk only to other organizations, but
> I don't see how that advances the interests of the public at-large.
>
> I don't want to devalue the ALSs, but I do want to empower
> the individuals within and outside them.
> --Wendy
>
> Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> > Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> >> One "house" of ALS reps and just 2 individuals; the other
> a gathering
> >> of individuals (the individual members of ALSs and anyone else who
> >> wants to join). It would be entirely possible that the
> organizational
> >> "house" would tend toward consensus, while the individual "house"
> >> brought out the diversity of individuals' interests, but both are
> >> things that ICANN needs to hear.  Each could choose one
> ALAC rep, or
> >> they could join to reach consensus on both.
> >>
> > Disagreed.
> >
> > Since the ALSs themselves are collectives, the "individual house"
> > (which would be little more than a pseudo-ALS) should have no more
> > status than any other single ALS.
> >
> > Our own organisations already reflect a broad diversity of
> interests.
> > I object to a process that would have the "none of the
> above" (NOTA)
> > individuals to have more status than the membership of our group or
> > any other ALS. As I've said before, it is discriminatory to the
> > existing members of ALSs to have the individuals (of
> Wendy's proposed
> > "individual
> > house") given more influence on the process (ie, in the
> selection of
> > ALAC reps).
> >
> > Either of Wendy's proposed scenarios suggest such gross imbalance:
> >
> > - "Each could choose one rep": that would mean that the NOTAs would
> > have an equal representation to all of the conventional ALSs (and
> > their combined collectives) put together
> >
> > - ╰hey could join to reach consensus on both": that would
> presume to
> > give each member of the "individual house" a seat at the consensus
> > table
> > -- and by inference, the ability to scuttle a consensus -- equal to
> > that of the REPRESENTATIVES of the ALSs.
> >
> > The best way to maintain fairness in the process IMO is for ALAC to
> > maintain a "pseudo ALS" for each region, that would accept
> as members
> > any individuals seeking input that are not already members
> of an ALS.
> > The pseudo-ALS would have similar status to any other ALS,
> and would
> > be allowed to internally determine its own process to
> select to reps
> > to the RALO.
> >
> > Anything beyond that, which unfairly elevates the rights of non-ALS
> > individual members, is to penalize the collective members
> of the ALS
> > groups. This is not only anti-democratic but a disincentive to
> > attracting the participation of other ALSs. Why incentive
> exists for
> > an ALS to join, when its individual members can obtain greater
> > influence by bypassing the process?
> >
> > - Evan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NA-Discuss mailing list
> > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis
> > ts.icann.org
> > ---
> > 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)1856 287203 // cell:
> 914.374.0613 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute
> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Draft Code of Conduct:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
>

_______________________________________________
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

Draft Code of Conduct:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct