I agree.  And who is to say whether an organization  that says it is open to individuals truly is living up to that?   I have tried to contact certain organizations and had my email bounced back as undeliverable. It doesnt make sense to me that they are there to address issues and involve a constituency when they dont maintain basic communication/contact information on their sites.   To say something is a red herring is just another tactic of dismissal and arrogance, and it sets a very negative tone for this list and really should be called out. 

On 4/17/07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Interesting point "Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At
Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and
people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple
times to increase their weight in votes."

If we were to say "No" to the orgs-of-orgs then we are actually
encouraging them to have each of their member organizations sign up
individually which would give them an extraordinary increase to their
weight in votes.  Not to mention how much extra it will cost ICANN to
bring each of those member organizations to any in face meetings.  It
seems to me that if those member orgs are all representing individuals
then we should let the orgs-of-orgs in.  It still enables us to do the
work we are attempting to do.

I would think that we should be inclusive rather than exclusive.

Just my two cents for what its worth.

D

Darlene A. Thompson
Community Access Program Administrator
Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP
c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
Phone:  (867) 975-6531
Fax:  (867) 979-8870
dthompson@gov.nu.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Vittorio Bertola
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:44 AM
To: John L
Cc: Michael Maranda; NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items

John L ha scritto:
>>Have these issues been resolved?  When will they be resolved?
>
>
> Beats me, the ombudsman sent an error riddled report to the board
which is
> supposed to do something about it.  Perhaps Vittorio knows where it
> stands.

The Board has to provide an answer to his recommendations by May 12 -
that's where it is now.

>>I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted.
>
> Nobody's disparaging their interest in involvement.  Why are you
bringing
> up this red herring?  The problem is that they're asking to join the
wrong
> piece of ICANN.  If they wanted to join the GAC or the IP
constituency,
> they wouldn't qualify there, either.

I'll take this de-lurking opportunity to explain that ICANN is in the
process of reviewing the GNSO, and that the external reviewers pointed
out that there might be some overlap of interests between the NCUC and
the individual users represented through the At Large mechanism. The
fact that several orgs-of-orgs now want to join the At Large might be
another sign that there is an issue there, and the distinction between
the two groups (which are in very different places in the ICANN
structure anyway) might be revised, blurred or even eliminated.

Basically, the principle of constituency building at ICANN has always
been "you pick where you belong", until some constituencies were
somewhat captured by the first comers and started to look for any kind
of excuse to refuse further members. Moreover, the "no org of orgs"
criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was
obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try
to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes. At this
point in time, personally I don't think that it makes much of a
difference whether an organization has individual members or not,
provided that it is clear that in the end it works to the advantage of
individual users.
--
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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