In short, my input on this and my review of ICANN structures...

I think there are 3 fundamentals that define everything I've been exposed to regarding ICANN and its structures:

1- Lack of legitimacy
While on paper, the structure and operating principles of ICANN seem sound, in practice there is little or no formal legitimacy for anything except the MOU with the US Dept. of Commerce.  I think this harms ICANN and the Internet as a whole.  Working down to the ALSs, there has been work but little progress toward incorporating them into ICANN policymanking.  This makes things difficult for the ALSs to grow and prove their legitimacy and therefore to operate as an organization.  It is imperative for ICANN to chart the course rather than ALSs charting the course, because we can all end up going in different directions with little real benefit for anyone.  In regard to our ALS, America@Large, we have struggled to gain legitimacy every step of the way and without ICANN support we cannot gain the spport needed to properly form and maintain a nonprofit structure with our (ICANNs) goals in mind.

2- Hypocrisy
In order for anyone to take ICANN or its structures seriously, ICANN must begin making moves toward less hypocrisy.  An excellent example is the recent 3-year-long discussion on .xxx.  ICANN states that .xxx extension was not approved because it felt that it would lead ICANN into " the business of content regulation."  However, most of the other TLDs approved have some type of content regulation built in, similar to .xxx.  How about .cat - a domain specifically designed for those in the Catalin region, or .mobi - content which is formatted for mobile devices, or .edu - content directly associated with accredited educational institutions, or .museum - content for museums, or any other extension that defines a particular category like .aero, .jobs, .etc.  I would seem that the decisions came more from outside ICANN than from within the formal structures.  The fact that the proposed content was to be adult oriented in nature seems to have weighed more than the importance of managing the DNS, and by default ICANN came into the business of content regulation and censorship.

3- Formality
ICANN, on one hand creates formal structures to help facilitate the process, whatever that may be.  On the other hand, the formal measures of these processes seems opaque.  Input is received and processed in an arbitrary manner.  This discussion group we are now using is a valuable contribution.  However, I think more is needed to consolidate the thoughts and discussions relative to this process.  What I feel is needed is a formal process for identifying and discussion and arriving at the end of a discussion.  The current situation is more of an ad hoc discussion with no real goal in mind -it seems.  On one hand, this is good in the nature of discussing an issue, but I wonder if there will be a way to arrive at a conclusion to any given issue.

Thanks!

-Randy Glass
A@L



On 4/15/07, Michael Maranda <mmaranda@afcn.org> wrote:
Coming into the whole question of "why have ALS and RALOs to begin with", and the uncertainty of what could be put in an MOU that would be agreed to, and then meaningful, let along enforceable is a major challenge, and sets things on a strange footing.

The large points are whether the public interest holds much weight in ICANN decisions and in terms of regulation of their own processes (and enforcement of policy) - and whether individuals and other small entities who make use of and increasingly depend upon the Internet.

It would be good to map out the gaps in accountability that are currently present... (quite an undertaking, I am sure)  and while it may sound a naive proposal, I think such a framing makes things very clear to a wider audience. 

Who can we depend upon to generate such a map?  What point of entry can we make for the newcomer to these questions?   How can we use information/communications technologies to facilitate that and to increase the strength of an at-large community?

What expertise do we have in regard to these questions, and what advice has been sought?

That's where our focus should be directed:  building our capacity to really represent the at large community - to inform them and to show that we have the weight of the world behind us.  (Not on top of us)

I see the various tools established for At Large and RALO use.   Who controls them?  Will it remain that way?  Do they serve our interest?  What would better serve to be a place to aggregate the issues and voices of the public at large?


-MM




On 4/15/07, RJGlass | America@Large < jipshida@gmail.com> wrote:
There should be some accountability in the process. 

Randy Glass
A@L


On 4/14/07, At-Large Staff <staff@alac.icann.org > wrote:
Dear North American ALS colleagues:

Please find below the clarification promised on the status of MoUs
with ICANN, and the view of the GC on the proposal by Wendy Seltzer on
enforceability of the MoUs.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Halloran < daniel.halloran@icann.org>
Date: 12-Apr-2007 23:28
Subject: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs
To: Nick Ashton-Hart < nick.ashton-hart@icann.org>
Cc: Sue Jonklaas < sue.jonklaas@icann.org>


Nick,

You asked about the legal status of the MOUs that ICANN enters with
its regional at-large organizations.  Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws
Article XI, Section 2.4g <http://www.icann.org/general/
bylaws.htm#XI-2.4g>, ICANN's RALO MOUs are intended to address the
"the respective roles and responsibilities of ICANN and the RALO
regarding the process for selecting ALAC members and requirements of
openness, participatory opportunities, transparency, accountability,
and diversity in the RALO's structure and procedures, as well as
criteria and standards for the RALO's constituent At-Large Structures."

The RALO MOUs were not intended to be "enforced" in courts of law --
they do not include jurisdiction or dispute resolution language.
They are intended only to document the structure and processes of
these advice formulation and coordination organizations.  It would
probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure
these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to
potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties
to these agreements.

I hope this information is helpful.  Please let me know if I can be
of any further assistance.

Best regards,
Dan Halloran


--
--
Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
PO Box 32160
London N4 2XY
United Kingdom
UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com /
Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

_______________________________________________
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



--
-------------------------
AmericaAtLarge.org
RJPacific.com
DDMF.org
_______________________________________________
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




--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
President, Association For Community Networking

Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance:   http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org



--
-------------------------
AmericaAtLarge.org
RJPacific.com
DDMF.org