I second that - I've also offered to spend some time on the telephone doing Q&A for her if that's helpful for her - and that offer's open to everyone else too On 02/02/07, Jacob Malthouse <jacob.malthouse@icann.org> wrote:

Hey Darlene,

This is just a personal observation, but I really think that no one should feel terrified to post on any list anywhere, let alone an ICANN list which is supposed to be encouraging newcomers.

There are no stupid questions and all contributions are useful.

I am personally very glad that you are interested in this work Darlene and hope you'll continue to stay involved and to learn about the issues under discussion here.

cheers,

Jacob.

Thompson, Darlene wrote:

...

As speaking as one of the "newcomers", I know that I would definitely appreciate a short history. I'm terrified to post anything here as I don't feel that I understand the context/history enough to make a useful contribution.

Thank you,

Darlene

Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 429 Pond Inlet, NU X0A 0S0 Phone: (867) 899-7363 Fax: (867) 899-7334 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 Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:07 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Evan:

Wendy and others have long been involved in ICANN and have concerns that should not be readily dismissed by newcomers. Might I suggest Wendy and others spend the time to explain the context and history a bit better...

In the meantime, my comments on a possible MoU are as follows:

The ALS in the NA region should develop a MoU that is far more precise and detailed vis-a-vis the document which the latin american region agreed to. Roles, responsibilities , expectations and mechanisms ensure transparency of both ICANN and ALS's, i believe must be precisely stated.

After all, with finances (ie. budget allocations) involved - the document should be as tight as possible.

regards

Robert

On 31-Jan-07, at 10:52 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Wendy Seltzer wrote:

...

On the other hand, if the MoU is not a contract, it doesn't provide the signing ALSs or RALO any remedies if ICANN breaches the terms of its agreement such as by failing to support the secretariat, failing to make documents available, or continued lack of transparency. Perhaps the ALSs want stronger remedies -- i.e., maybe we want to push for a real contract with a real possibility of money damages.

"We" (at least speaking for my personal participation in this "we") will NOT push for a "real contract" or monetary penalties, especially from a non-profit. In fact, "we" (from my POV) will actively oppose it. My ALS joined this process in order to assist ICANN, not aquire a collective opportunity to sue it.

I for one am happy to go along with the process Nick described that LAC had done, in electing the reps upon completion of the MOU. As for contracts versus MOUs, if I am in the minority and people here really want the abilility to sue ICANN, then at least set the jurisdiction in Canada or somewhere else which has real social and/or legal disincentives to frivolous litigation.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) Charset: US-ASCII

wj8DBQFFwPbzy4WW7wlGmwMRAvRkAKCincjxfHFnhiHg6VTEbD/zGiTkhACg1kUP k4IrUIy8r00klLi1xe7/NRw= =nDE9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

...

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

-- -- 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

Jacob Malthouse wrote:

This is just a personal observation, but I really think that no one should feel terrified to post on any list anywhere, let alone an ICANN list which is supposed to be encouraging newcomers.

Thanks for the comments, Jacob. At the Toronto meeting at which my group was invited to become an ALAC, we were informed that this was to be a relatively informal advisory board that wouldn't be expected to have much of a budget. Now that I'm here, things sound different. Maybe I'm reading too much into comments, but I get the impression from what some "old timers" are saying the ALACs are a thinly veiled PR attempt by ICANN to demonstrate community involvement. In reality, there's an ivory tower that doesn't really want to listen to the masses, leaving the ALACs to internally engage in energy-consuming issues such as language of regional documents, but without substantive voice on big-picture matters. Those with experience in already trying to get their voices heard tell a disheartening story which suggests that 1) Beyond simply discussing issues of relevance to our regional communities and issues related to ICANN's mandate, ALACs (and I guess RALOs by inference) need to advocate process fundamentals such as transparency and good governance. This reduces the focus on policy, which was our reason for getting involved. 2) Experience appears to indicate that sometimes only lawsuits get ICANN's attention, suggesting that its advisory bodies need to reserve that capability merely in order to be heard. Amazingly, it is suggested that ICANN will agree to fund lawsuits against itself in return for the publicity value of having the ALAC/RALO process. I'm not dismissing the comments of those who suggest that the North American RALO needs to build in legal tools to enforce its mandate. On the contrary, I see them as a serious description of ALAC mandate and processes that appear quite different from what was promoted when we joined. I stand by my comments that the legal mechanisms indicate a failure of good faith and imagination, but it seems that some of this failure has already happened. As I was under the impression that the ALAC process is itself relatively new, I find the existing level of cynicism -- justified as it appears to be -- quite troubling. I appreciate Nick's offer of a phone call to help explain things. Given facilities such as Skype, the cost of a conference call can be minimal. Any effort to correct my impressions as stated above are VERY welcomed. Also, I share Darlene's request for a written history -- not just for the benefit of existing newcomers, but also those to follow. Evan Leibovitch Executive Director, CLUE www.cluecan.ca

Thanks for the comments. No one should feel reluctant to contribute to these discussions. We need fresh voices and new input! I'm thrilled that there are groups who got involved because you want to focus on policy. You can start by suggesting positions that your organizations or ALAC as a whole should take in advice to ICANN. Open issues include WHOIS and privacy, new gTLDs (.xxx and generally), and internationalized domain names (IDN). I'll try to take a few messages to spell out the issues of organizational politics that are also involved. Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Maybe I'm reading too much into comments, but I get the impression from what some "old timers" are saying the ALACs are a thinly veiled PR attempt by ICANN to demonstrate community involvement. In reality, there's an ivory tower that doesn't really want to listen to the masses, leaving the ALACs to internally engage in energy-consuming issues such as language of regional documents, but without substantive voice on big-picture matters.

To my mind, you're reading it precisely as intended. I've been working in areas near to ICANN since its founding, and I've seen a consistent resistance to hearing from the public, and continuing measures to weaken the public's voice. As you may know, the initial bylaws (1999) provided that fully half of the seats on ICANN's board would be chosen by the at-large public. Now, the entire public has no voting board seats and only an advisory role, while we're being asked to build a series of complicated structures by which to be merely advisory. ICANN is using the "success" of this organization-building effort in its publicity, claiming that formation of the LACRALO means it's listening to the individual Internet users. I don't think we want to be serving that PR role without getting -- at the very least -- genuine consideration of public concerns, preferably through voting Board seats.

Those with experience in already trying to get their voices heard tell a disheartening story which suggests that

1) Beyond simply discussing issues of relevance to our regional communities and issues related to ICANN's mandate, ALACs (and I guess RALOs by inference) need to advocate process fundamentals such as transparency and good governance. This reduces the focus on policy, which was our reason for getting involved.

I don't think it's wise to build a RALO without those considerations. Anyone who wants to provide policy advice is welcome to contribute that with or without a RALO. Indeed, nothing I've seen so far suggests that ALAC or a RALO is a more effective means of providing advice than gathering the signatures of a few people on an independent document. We send a stronger message on transparency and good governance, though, by refusing to build a figurehead-RALO than by building one and achieving nothing with it.

2) Experience appears to indicate that sometimes only lawsuits get ICANN's attention, suggesting that its advisory bodies need to reserve that capability merely in order to be heard.

Yes, it's sad but true. Even as a lawyer, I agree that resort to the legal system is not the ideal, but I think we're so far from seeing good faith that legal remedies are at least a necessary background to civilized discussion.

Amazingly, it is suggested that ICANN will agree to fund lawsuits against itself in return for the publicity value of having the ALAC/RALO process.

Perhaps ICANN wouldn't go that far, but the debate would certainly be more informative than the platitudes that come out of ICANN's carefully scripted meetings. --Wendy resident cynic

I'm not dismissing the comments of those who suggest that the North American RALO needs to build in legal tools to enforce its mandate. On the contrary, I see them as a serious description of ALAC mandate and processes that appear quite different from what was promoted when we joined.

I stand by my comments that the legal mechanisms indicate a failure of good faith and imagination, but it seems that some of this failure has already happened. As I was under the impression that the ALAC process is itself relatively new, I find the existing level of cynicism -- justified as it appears to be -- quite troubling.

I appreciate Nick's offer of a phone call to help explain things. Given facilities such as Skype, the cost of a conference call can be minimal. Any effort to correct my impressions as stated above are VERY welcomed.

Also, I share Darlene's request for a written history -- not just for the benefit of existing newcomers, but also those to follow.

Evan Leibovitch Executive Director, CLUE www.cluecan.ca

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org 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/