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
- ¨they 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-lists.ica... --- 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/