John, Do you have, or could you point me to a clear and unambiguous definition of the term "individual user" (you use it at least three times in your note below). tks, Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: April 18, 2007 12:59 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it?
Nobody's throwing up blocks to participation. If the organizations in question had applied to the NCUC where they belong, they would have been accepted months if not years ago.
The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
That's not the bylaws, that part of the letter is JJ's opinion of what he thinks the bylaws should mean. The actual bylaws language is quoted in the middle of page 2 of his letter. You can and should read the full bylaws at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm This is a good example of ICANN working at odds with the interest of at large users. The ALAC is supposed to represent individual end users, not people who think they represent the interests of end users.* The idea of all the constituencies is that each represents some group of interested people. There is a long history of special interests vs. public interest at ICANN, with the public interest all too often getting the short end of the stick. For example, today you can read about a bunch of price increases by major GTLD registries that have no justification other than that the first one was bundled into the settlement of a lawsuit against ICANN. To the extent that the ALAC fills up with groups that belong elsewhere, the already tenuous influence of individuals is further diluted. If you think that individuals deserve their place at the table, this is a problem you should be concerned about. If the staff had supported us and said a year ago, hey, the bylaws say you're applying to the wrong place, go to the NCUC, that would have been the end of it. Instead, we've been subjected to a year of appeals and ombudsman and now the general council torturing the language to futher dilute what little influence individual users have. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. * - which opens the door to anyone from Sympatico and Road Runner ("we're deeply concerned about the interests of our millions of individual ISP customers") to trademark lawyers ("we're fighting to keep individual users from being confused about the valuable brand names they know and trust"). Let's not go there. _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:2676,462678b3273381511682732!