GNSO reform and ALAC
Hello everyone, For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a document being drafted on a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some sort of "public" representation that has come up with some very strange conclusions. Here is an early draft of the document: http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20Refor... A more recent version of the draft has essentially gutted ALAC's role and calls for some sort of direct participation by ALSs. The truly amazing thing is that this is being advanced as having the support of ALAC itself! http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html Compounding the problem is that the closing of public comments is this week -- and the fact that the document is still in flux!! How can "the public" adequately address a moving target in this manner? Frankly, not only the document but the process that has produced it is flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now heard from Beau and Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC list -- why is it being debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact with me). I am asking one or more of you to help craft a NARALO position that we can submit this week. I will do my best to help but I will likely be incapacitated for most of the rest of this week because of surgery. Both the document (at least in its current form) and the process that developed it IMO should not be submitted as something with widespread -- let alone universal -- public support. Can some folks here please get together to draft something upon which NARALO can get a consensus statement and submit before the deadline? Thanks! - Evan
On Apr 22, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
A more recent version of the draft has essentially gutted ALAC's role
Speaking as the ALAC's former liaison to the GNSO (the position Alan now holds), the ALAC has *no* role in the GNSO, so there is nothing whatsoever to gut. The ALAC liaison is there as a non-voting member of the Council. From time to time, we have had some success is swaying the debate, but this is only because we made good arguments. Officially, we are only on the Council to exchange information back and forth. We have no vote. I don't know what the current draft shows, but virtually anything that required the ALAC/ALS views to be considered would be a step forward. -- Bret P.S. I'll read the report tomorrow and report back to the list again.
Bret Fausett wrote:
On Apr 22, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
A more recent version of the draft has essentially gutted ALAC's role
Speaking as the ALAC's former liaison to the GNSO (the position Alan now holds), the ALAC has *no* role in the GNSO, so there is nothing whatsoever to gut. This whole document is about fixing that situation. In early drafts, ALAC seemed like it would have a role. Now it's even out of the proposed fix.
P.S. I'll read the report tomorrow and report back to the list again.
OK, thanks. - Evan
Evan, The ALAC has participated in a joint statement without any consultative engagement with its own membership; such behavior should not be countenanced -- the final Statement is posted here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html regards, Danny --- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a document being drafted on a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some sort of "public" representation that has come up with some very strange conclusions. Here is an early draft of the document:
http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20Refor...
A more recent version of the draft has essentially gutted ALAC's role and calls for some sort of direct participation by ALSs. The truly amazing thing is that this is being advanced as having the support of ALAC itself!
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html
Compounding the problem is that the closing of public comments is this week -- and the fact that the document is still in flux!! How can "the public" adequately address a moving target in this manner?
Frankly, not only the document but the process that has produced it is flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now heard from Beau and Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC list -- why is it being debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact with me). I am asking one or more of you to help craft a NARALO position that we can submit this week. I will do my best to help but I will likely be incapacitated for most of the rest of this week because of surgery.
Both the document (at least in its current form) and the process that developed it IMO should not be submitted as something with widespread -- let alone universal -- public support. Can some folks here please get together to draft something upon which NARALO can get a consensus statement and submit before the deadline?
Thanks!
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Danny Younger wrote:
The ALAC has participated in a joint statement without any consultative engagement with its own membership; such behavior should not be countenanced -- the final Statement is posted here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html
I am not immune to the irony in complaining about the ALAC's disenfranchisement in the GNSO document, while simultaneously complaining about the ALAC disenfranchisement of its own community. It sometimes makes one wonder if ALAC is worth defending -- but doing so is better than standing by silently while a system is proposed that invites gaming while further slowing the At-Large maturation process.. Danny, can you -- maybe together with Wendy, Brett and Beau -- draft a brief statement that expresses our disgust, both with the document and the process that produced it? I would very much want to get NARALO consensus on it and submit it before the public comment deadline. - Evan
Evan, Perhaps you and others can expand upon this: Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.1 The North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) disassociates itself from the document submitted to the ICANN Board Governance Committee entitled "Joint users proposal GNSO structural change". It is the view of the NARALO that as we were neither participants in the formulation of this document nor afforded the opportunity to comment upon this submission, it would be inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained therein. The North American community, in the wake of the RegisterFly debacle, has respected the call put forth by ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey to "make the changes needed to protect registrants" by actively participating in efforts intended to provide this impacted community with a voice. Accordingly, we take umbrage with a proposal that fails to offer any specific representative opportunity to the broad community of registrants that are impacted by ICANN's policies. We further see major problems with a recommendation that fails to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant users. We ask the Board Governace Committee to respect the principle of representation set out in ICANN's MOU that called for technical management structures to reflect the global and functional diversity of Internet users and their needs. --- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
The ALAC has participated in a joint statement without any consultative engagement with its own membership; such behavior should not be countenanced -- the final Statement is posted here:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html
I am not immune to the irony in complaining about the ALAC's disenfranchisement in the GNSO document, while simultaneously complaining about the ALAC disenfranchisement of its own community. It sometimes makes one wonder if ALAC is worth defending -- but doing so is better than standing by silently while a system is proposed that invites gaming while further slowing the At-Large maturation process..
Danny, can you -- maybe together with Wendy, Brett and Beau -- draft a brief statement that expresses our disgust, both with the document and the process that produced it? I would very much want to get NARALO consensus on it and submit it before the public comment deadline.
- Evan
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
What a farce. Whether or not the document is any good, I saw no consultation with ALAC that would support the claim that "The attached document is a unique collaboration of the joint users groups represented within ICANN today: The At-Large Advisory Committee The Commercial and Business Users Constituency The Intellectual Property Constituency The Internet Service and Connection Providers Constituency The Non-Commercial Users Constituency." --Wendy Danny Younger wrote:
Evan,
The ALAC has participated in a joint statement without any consultative engagement with its own membership; such behavior should not be countenanced -- the final Statement is posted here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html
regards, Danny
--- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a document being drafted on a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some sort of "public" representation that has come up with some very strange conclusions. Here is an early draft of the document:
http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20Refor...
A more recent version of the draft has essentially gutted ALAC's role and calls for some sort of direct participation by ALSs. The truly amazing thing is that this is being advanced as having the support of ALAC itself!
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html
Compounding the problem is that the closing of public comments is this week -- and the fact that the document is still in flux!! How can "the public" adequately address a moving target in this manner?
Frankly, not only the document but the process that has produced it is flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now heard from Beau and Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC list -- why is it being debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact with me). I am asking one or more of you to help craft a NARALO position that we can submit this week. I will do my best to help but I will likely be incapacitated for most of the rest of this week because of surgery.
Both the document (at least in its current form) and the process that developed it IMO should not be submitted as something with widespread -- let alone universal -- public support. Can some folks here please get together to draft something upon which NARALO can get a consensus statement and submit before the deadline?
Thanks!
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
For what it's worth, the document was never posted on the NCUC list either. --- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
What a farce.
Whether or not the document is any good, I saw no consultation with ALAC that would support the claim that "The attached document is a unique collaboration of the joint users groups represented within ICANN today: The At-Large Advisory Committee The Commercial and Business Users Constituency The Intellectual Property Constituency The Internet Service and Connection Providers Constituency The Non-Commercial Users Constituency."
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
What a farce.
Whether or not the document is any good
It isn't. It completely marginalizes the individual registrant and user communities by shifting most of the power to the commercial user/commercial registrant community (read: IPC/ISPC/BC). I think the paper is correct in pointing out that contracted parties do need some sort of grouping, but it forgets that registrants (of all types) are a highly important component of this. My strongest preference has always been to provide the contracted parties with 1/2 of the vote of the Council, and the user community with the other 1/2. How the 1/2s get divided up is a matter for discussion, but I think its time for a serious discussion of these matters before some half-baked scheme like this commercial power grab gets institutionalized. Sorry for cross posting this - not sure where this thread should actually live. /ross
Thanks for your input Ross. I'm from the school of thought that supports the one-man-one-vote principle (which in ICANN terms would equate to one-constituency-one vote). --- Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
What a farce.
Whether or not the document is any good
It isn't. It completely marginalizes the individual registrant and user communities by shifting most of the power to the commercial user/commercial registrant community (read: IPC/ISPC/BC).
I think the paper is correct in pointing out that contracted parties do need some sort of grouping, but it forgets that registrants (of all types) are a highly important component of this. My strongest preference has always been to provide the contracted parties with 1/2 of the vote of the Council, and the user community with the other 1/2. How the 1/2s get divided up is a matter for discussion, but I think its time for a serious discussion of these matters before some half-baked scheme like this commercial power grab gets institutionalized.
Sorry for cross posting this - not sure where this thread should actually live.
/ross
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
I hate to comment on merit, because at the end of the day this proposal will end up on the Board's agenda, but I cannot avoid making a comment for clarification. The approach used by Ross (50% to contracted parties, or supplier, 50% to non-contracted parties, or users/consumers, plus possibly NomCom appointees as tie-breakers) was seen by the GNSO Review WG after very lengthy discussions as the only possible balance. This, incidentally, is exactly the status-quo, if you do the voting maths: Ry+Rar have 12 votes because of the weighted voting, BC+ISP+IP+NCUC have 12 votes, NomComAppointees have 3 (tie-break) votes. The "triangular" proposal reproposes the unbalanced situation we had before, that brought to the introduction of the weighted voting. If it didn't work before, and needed fixing, it has little chances to be considered workable now. At least, the document should explain to the Board why folks think that what did not work in the past would work in the future. On a different level, the whole point the GNSO Review WG was trying to address is the fact that in the current situation of ossified constituencies there is very little chance, if any, to have new stakeholder groups to be introduced, like individual registrants or individual users. Rather than engaging in the exercise of finding different structural solutions, would it be more useful to work towards building stakeholders groups that can operate in the model offered by the GNSO Review WG? Wouldn't this be more useful for the individual registrant and/or individual user communities? Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2008 16:11 To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large Worldwide; Danny Younger; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
What a farce.
Whether or not the document is any good
It isn't. It completely marginalizes the individual registrant and user communities by shifting most of the power to the commercial user/commercial registrant community (read: IPC/ISPC/BC).
I think the paper is correct in pointing out that contracted parties do need some sort of grouping, but it forgets that registrants (of all types) are a highly important component of this. My strongest preference has always been to provide the contracted parties with 1/2 of the vote of the Council, and the user community with the other 1/2. How the 1/2s get divided up is a matter for discussion, but I think its time for a serious discussion of these matters before some half-baked scheme like this commercial power grab gets institutionalized.
Sorry for cross posting this - not sure where this thread should actually live.
/ross
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (6)
-
Bret Fausett -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Roberto Gaetano -
Ross Rader -
Wendy Seltzer