Mr. Robert Guerra wrote:
Wendy:
Thanks for further describing your "bicameral proposal".
Thanks for the questions. I've suggested some possibilities below.
Personally, though perhaps adding some duplication and level of bureaucracy, I think the creation of a dual chamber mechanism of representation has merit. It just needs to be detailed a bit further.
Examples that you could provide on how proposals and/or nominations would get approved would help illustrate the process and give us a better idea of how to best implement it in the NA RALO documents being drafted.
I have a couple of quick comments/questions that I hope can serve to clarify people's understanding of your proposal, how it could work - and how it could be implemented ...
- I would prefer that the chamber names be changed from house/senate to something else that is more international and less culturally specific for the USA. Say affiliate and non-affiliated chambers..?
I was calling them "individuals' house" and "organizational house," since even affiliated individuals could join the non-organizational house. "Chamber" works fine too.
- am I correct in assuming that all proposals and/or motions need to be approved TWICE , once by each chamber. As the representatives are pretty well the same ones on both bodies, isn't it bit of duplication?
I don't see there being a whole lot of issues that require NARALO to speak as NARALO. Rather, there will be some times when North Americans want to say something to ICANN and some times when ICANN wants to ask North Americans (and those in other regions) questions. Either or both chambers could participate in these discussions and engage individuals to participate.
- As is the case often with a dual representative chamber:
a. Legislative functions- should any specific authority be given to one body vs another. For example, should the upper (ALS only) body be given the exclusive authority to vet applicant ALS's or vet ALAC candidates
I'd suggest each chamber selects one ALAC member. Either could put forward policy documents or proposals to ICANN. Consensus of both would be required only to speak for the NARALO.
b. in the case of a stalemate between the chambers, is there any process that should be defined in advance on how to solve the issue? Should a role (if any) be given to ICANN or the ALAC to resolve disputes?
Not ICANN or ALAC; I don't think we want top-down intervention. If things turn out to be vote-driven rather than consensus, we could find vote threshholds or let the chair or organizational house break ties.
for example, in Canada the governor general (as does the queen in the UK) does have the discretionary power to dissolve parliament and/or call another party to form the govt . Should such powers be given to either the at large committee or ICANN's board?
Ref: Parliament of Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada
- In terms of procedure(s)
1. Term limits - ? how long should the term of the reps serving in the NA ALS parliament be?
Isn't that a question in any model? I envision direct participation in the individual chamber, with no term limit besides exhaustion.
2. Is there a minimum # of times the houses should meet in a given year? Should a mechanism be contemplated to invoke should such requirement not be meet?
No.
3. Should a quorum be specified for the chambers? if so, what #'s are ideal?
Sure, perhaps set quorum at 2/3 of registered orgs, 2/3 of the registered individuals. Votes, if necessary, would be majority. Thanks, --Wendy
In summary, as I mentioned at the start - i think your proposal has merit. it is just working out the details that is a bit sticky. I hope that with your collaboration and discussion among the others on this list we can endorse it, and incorporate it in the documents being drafted.
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
On 29-May-07, at 6:16 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Jean Armour Polly wrote:
Hi, I don't want to speak for Wendy but as I recall that is exactly why she was proposing a bicameral idea, where the accredited ALS's would act as the "Senate" and *all* unaffiliated individual users would all be in the "House." The House would elect 2 "speakers" (if memory serves...) who would take two seats in the Senate with the accredited ALS's. (I'm sorry if I have not gotten this right.) Pretty close. I was suggesting that two bodies be jointly responsible for the RALO: Everyone could join the "individuals' house," individual members of ALSs participating with equal footing with unaffiliated individuals. THe "organizational house" would have the 2 reps of each ALS, plus 2 from the non-affiliated individuals. Like the U.S. House and Senate, where individuals are represented through two different means (2 reps per state in the Senate, population-based representation in the House), the two chambers might have different ways of gathering Internet users' input, both of which would be valuable to the process.
Lobbyists are individuals too, and the aim in the "individuals' house" would be to get them participating alongside unaffiliated individuals. There are many forms of capture, and offering two channels for involvement seems to me more likely to stave off more of them.
--Wendy
Would it really matter if every unaffiliated Internet user in NA joined the "House"--including lobbyists--etc? I don't know why--because in the end the House only has 2 votes in the Senate. On the other hand, is there anything to stop anyone --including lobbyists-- from joining every accredited ALS? It seems like that would be a better route. That way, they could certainly multiply their influence, and every ALS gets two votes. But I don't want to be accused of trying to hold anything up. JP unaffiliated Internet user
At 9:27 AM -0400 5/28/07, Thompson, Darlene recently said:
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A12B.E653E425"
I agree.
All ALSs go through a process of "approval". What process do individuals have to go through to ensure that they are lobbyists or others that would be unattractive to our group. Unless we create some kind of umbrella group for the individuals that would act as a pseudo-ALS and they could police their own membership (this has been suggested before but I'm not sure by whom). We need some kind of wording clarifying what we would like this to look like.
D
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/