There are a bunch of questions below; I'll have a go at answering them: On 05/05/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Jean, I think you've mixed up descriptors here and the result is likely to give people an incorrect understanding as a consequence.
Well, you've both confused me. :-P
Sorry to hear that :(
I was under the impression that the RALO structure was supposed to allow _the_ means for participation of the at-large community. It (supposedly) includes provisions for structures, and for individuals who don't belong to any such structures.
Those are both true statements.
(Haven't we just been blowing our collective brains out trying to derive the best way to do this?)
At-Large and ALAC are not interchangeable. At-Large and ICANN Staff are not interchangeable, either.
This of course begs the question of how and why there is an at-large infrastructure in ICANN separate from ALAC. How can this _not_ be seen a utterly redundant? If the "ICANN At-large" mechanism offers a process through which individuals may have a consultative voice, what the heck is the reason for all of _our_ thrashing around on this issue?
Let me put it a different way, as I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. The RALOS and the ALAC are, combined, the At-Large community. ICANN has staff, and a budget line, to provide services and support as a secretariat basically to the community as a whole. Each RALO may define most aspects of its structure and operation as it pleases.
Why are these separate budget and structural items? If the RALOs select
They aren't really - see above.
the members of ALAC, why isn't this integrated? And why do ICANN staff have the authority to veto an explicit democraticly-made requests from ALAC? If the ALAC is supposed to serve the interests of the At-Large
The thing to remember is that the funds of ICANN are ICANN's funds, and good organisational governance requires that staff exercise ultimate control over the expenditures of the organisation. ICANN's directors have actual legal liability in certain circumstances if funds of the organisation were not administered properly, so this will always mean that staff exercise ultimate control over spending money. That said, there is a procedure in place for the allocation of funds to projects which RALOs, or the ALAC, or both - or even individual ALSes - wish to request and the decisions on whether ICANN should fund these projects are driven very largely by the community. I've attached it below so you can see it if you haven't already.
community, I can understand it making advice to the Board that may be considered and rejected -- but I don't understand why staff have the ability to reject ALAC's mandate.
They don't have the ability to reject ALAC's mandate - but see above vis a vis spending money.
Or maybe the answer is dead simple and I've just read it wrong. This comes across to me like one of those areas in which the long-time participants here and ICANN staff seem to know some sort of secret handshake that the newcomers need to learn over time.
Hopefully things are clearer now :)
- 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
-- -- 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