Nobody's throwing up blocks to participation. If the organizations in question had applied to the NCUC where they belong, they would have been accepted months if not years ago.
Who is to say that the NCUC is where they "belong"? Perhaps that isn't the type of work they are interested in. If their member groups are representing interested individuals and they can PROVE that (I would insist on them having to prove that somehow), then they obviously belong here. Again, if ICANN would approve these ones, and these ones can prove that they are representing individuals through their member orgs, then it is WE who are throwing up barriers.
This is a good example of ICANN working at odds with the interest of at
large users. The ALAC is supposed to represent individual end users, not people who think they represent the interests of end users.* The idea of
So, who makes that judgment call of who actually represents individual end users and who "think they represent the interests of end users"? If orgs-of-orgs can prove that they represent individuals, why would be stop them from joining us? Is this power left up to just one or two people??? This is making me extremely uncomfortable.
If you think that individuals deserve their place at the table, this is a problem you should be concerned about.
You bet I'm VERY concerned about this. That is why I am pursuing this whole thread. I think that we should be encouraging participation by the appropriate groups and nothing that has been said here has changed my mind that this is actually happening.
If the staff had supported us and said a year ago, hey, the bylaws say you're applying to the wrong place, go to the NCUC, that would have been the end of it. Instead, we've been subjected to a year of appeals and ombudsman and now the general council torturing the language to futher dilute what little influence individual users have.
Well, thank God that somebody is actually looking into this issue! I do not want to dilute user influence but rather re-look at how we are encouraging users. I just don't want to cut off an organization that might be all about user interests just because it has a structure that we aren't used to. I would rather pursue this issue in a spirit of open-mindedness and inclusion so that we capture as many end-user opinions as possible. 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: John L [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:59 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it?
Nobody's throwing up blocks to participation. If the organizations in question had applied to the NCUC where they belong, they would have been accepted months if not years ago.
The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such
an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
That's not the bylaws, that part of the letter is JJ's opinion of what he thinks the bylaws should mean. The actual bylaws language is quoted in the middle of page 2 of his letter. You can and should read the full bylaws at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm This is a good example of ICANN working at odds with the interest of at large users. The ALAC is supposed to represent individual end users, not people who think they represent the interests of end users.* The idea of all the constituencies is that each represents some group of interested people. There is a long history of special interests vs. public interest at ICANN, with the public interest all too often getting the short end of the stick. For example, today you can read about a bunch of price increases by major GTLD registries that have no justification other than that the first one was bundled into the settlement of a lawsuit against ICANN. To the extent that the ALAC fills up with groups that belong elsewhere, the already tenuous influence of individuals is further diluted. If you think that individuals deserve their place at the table, this is a problem you should be concerned about. If the staff had supported us and said a year ago, hey, the bylaws say you're applying to the wrong place, go to the NCUC, that would have been the end of it. Instead, we've been subjected to a year of appeals and ombudsman and now the general council torturing the language to futher dilute what little influence individual users have. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. * - which opens the door to anyone from Sympatico and Road Runner ("we're deeply concerned about the interests of our millions of individual ISP customers") to trademark lawyers ("we're fighting to keep individual users from being confused about the valuable brand names they know and trust"). Let's not go there.