ALAC Committee - Liaisons to other constituencies and processes
Hello everyone! An interesting discussion has started in the European At-Large community list and considering the nature of the conversation I thought it would be sensible to acquaint those of you not following this discussion (there are many from other regions listening in) with an element of it. For those who are not aware, the At-Large Advisory Committee has the right to appoint a number of liaisons, and in the case of the NomCom, a number of actual members, who participate in the work of the other communities and key working groups and report back to ALAC on what is happening, as well as taking the view of ALAC, and by extension the At-Large community, back to those other constituencies. These positions therefore represent important opportunities for the point of view of the At-Large constituency to be represented, though there are various perspectives about how effective these positions can be, for a whole variety of reasons, which I hope those who have views will express for a more complete and rich debate. A question was raised about who is eligible to fill these positions: members of the ALAC only, or anyone. ICANN's legal staff were asked to provide a view on the subject, and have done so, making clear that since the Bylaws do not require membership in the ALAC in order to, for example, be the ALAC Board Liaison, it is for the ALAC to decide the manner in which these positions are appointed, elected, or otherwise filled. This is in line with ALAC practice, having had Bret Fausett, a non-ALAC member, as GNSO Liaison for some years now. The discussion has moved on to a request that there should be set rules of procedure with respect to these appointments, so that the community could see transparently who was being nominated, how they were being nominated, and on what basis selected. The ALAC did resolve to compile draft procedures relating to these matters, with Vittorio Bertola volunteering to take on this task. There are quite a few liaison positions. The posts are as follows: (5) seats on the Nominating Committee (out of a total of 17 voting members) (1) liaison to the ICANN Board (1) liaison to the GNSO (1) liaison to the ccNSO Additionally the following ad-hoc appointments/liaison positions currently exist: (1) liaison to the IDN Working Group (1) liaison to the WHOIS Working Group (1) liaison to the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs The provisions of the Bylaws with respect to these matters can be found at: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm. Article XI,s2(4) contains provisions related to the ALAC. Provisions related to the appointment, revocation of appointment, and/or reappointment appear in various places in the Bylaws in respect of the ccNSO and the GNSO, but in both cases, the ALAC may appoint, reappoint, or revoke an appointment, of its liaisons as it pleases and no term is defined for either. Note that there are particular provisions for the Regional At-Large Organisations to provide input into the appointment of the five voting seats on the Nominating Committee - with RALOs in later stages of formation in many regions, you may wish to consider how to provide input to ALAC with respect to these positions in due course. There is one seat per Geographic Region as defined by ICANN. I hope that this email has served to accurately convey the nature of the discussions and introduce (in particular) those who may be new to At-Large to this important subject. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart ICANN At Large Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nashton@spamcop.net Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart
The other element of the discussion (raised by Jeanette Hoffman) is the "ICANN/ALAC disease". Perhaps you could enlighten us further on this topic. regards, Danny --- ICANN At Large Staff <staff@alac.icann.org> wrote:
Hello everyone!
An interesting discussion has started in the European At-Large community list and considering the nature of the conversation I thought it would be sensible to acquaint those of you not following this discussion (there are many from other regions listening in) with an element of it.
For those who are not aware, the At-Large Advisory Committee has the right to appoint a number of liaisons, and in the case of the NomCom, a number of actual members, who participate in the work of the other communities and key working groups and report back to ALAC on what is happening, as well as taking the view of ALAC, and by extension the At-Large community, back to those other constituencies. These positions therefore represent important opportunities for the point of view of the At-Large constituency to be represented, though there are various perspectives about how effective these positions can be, for a whole variety of reasons, which I hope those who have views will express for a more complete and rich debate.
A question was raised about who is eligible to fill these positions: members of the ALAC only, or anyone. ICANN's legal staff were asked to provide a view on the subject, and have done so, making clear that since the Bylaws do not require membership in the ALAC in order to, for example, be the ALAC Board Liaison, it is for the ALAC to decide the manner in which these positions are appointed, elected, or otherwise filled. This is in line with ALAC practice, having had Bret Fausett, a non-ALAC member, as GNSO Liaison for some years now.
The discussion has moved on to a request that there should be set rules of procedure with respect to these appointments, so that the community could see transparently who was being nominated, how they were being nominated, and on what basis selected. The ALAC did resolve to compile draft procedures relating to these matters, with Vittorio Bertola volunteering to take on this task.
There are quite a few liaison positions. The posts are as follows:
(5) seats on the Nominating Committee (out of a total of 17 voting members) (1) liaison to the ICANN Board (1) liaison to the GNSO (1) liaison to the ccNSO
Additionally the following ad-hoc appointments/liaison positions currently exist:
(1) liaison to the IDN Working Group (1) liaison to the WHOIS Working Group (1) liaison to the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs
The provisions of the Bylaws with respect to these matters can be found at: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm. Article XI,s2(4) contains provisions related to the ALAC. Provisions related to the appointment, revocation of appointment, and/or reappointment appear in various places in the Bylaws in respect of the ccNSO and the GNSO, but in both cases, the ALAC may appoint, reappoint, or revoke an appointment, of its liaisons as it pleases and no term is defined for either.
Note that there are particular provisions for the Regional At-Large Organisations to provide input into the appointment of the five voting seats on the Nominating Committee - with RALOs in later stages of formation in many regions, you may wish to consider how to provide input to ALAC with respect to these positions in due course. There is one seat per Geographic Region as defined by ICANN.
I hope that this email has served to accurately convey the nature of the discussions and introduce (in particular) those who may be new to At-Large to this important subject.
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart ICANN At Large Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nashton@spamcop.net Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Hello all, The LAC RALO texts are here for us to work on them for the NA RALO formation: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU> and http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP> _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 <http://www.gfisolutions.com/> www.GFISolutions.com <http://www.gfisolutions.com/> www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/>
Hello Luc, Perhaps you might tell us why you support a concept that institutionalizes the permanent disenfranchisement of the At-Large community. You seek to formalize a process designed to forever deny the At-Large community representation on the ICANN Board. You might recall that the At-Large Study Committee after spending a vast amount of time and funds concluded that consensus had been found for the creation of an At-Large Supporting Organization that would elect representatives to the ICANN Board. Instead of working to secure representation for our community, you appear to be willing to accept "participation" instead of the "representation" that is both your right and your due. Don't you believe in fighting for what is right and appropriate? Why are you blithely accepting that which the at-large community has already resoundingly rejected? What you are choosing is not a suitable path forward for our community. Cordially, Danny Younger --- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Hello all,
The LAC RALO texts are here for us to work on them for the NA RALO formation:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU> and
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP>
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 <http://www.gfisolutions.com/> www.GFISolutions.com <http://www.gfisolutions.com/> www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/>
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Hello Danny, I think as you do that achieving At-Large community representation on the ICANN board is essential. Let's see what the rest of the NA RALO people think about the idea. If they agree we should work towards this goal, I think we have a better chance of achieving it from inside than from outside the organization. Maybe there's a better way. Any suggestions? _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 12 janvier 2007 13:04 To: Luc Faubert; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Link to the draft MOU and OP for NA RALO formation
Hello Luc,
Perhaps you might tell us why you support a concept that institutionalizes the permanent disenfranchisement of the At-Large community. You seek to formalize a process designed to forever deny the At-Large community representation on the ICANN Board.
You might recall that the At-Large Study Committee after spending a vast amount of time and funds concluded that consensus had been found for the creation of an At-Large Supporting Organization that would elect representatives to the ICANN Board.
Instead of working to secure representation for our community, you appear to be willing to accept "participation" instead of the "representation" that is both your right and your due.
Don't you believe in fighting for what is right and appropriate? Why are you blithely accepting that which the at-large community has already resoundingly rejected?
What you are choosing is not a suitable path forward for our community.
Cordially, Danny Younger
--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Hello all,
The LAC RALO texts are here for us to work on them for the NA RALO formation:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU> and
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP>
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 <http://www.gfisolutions.com/> www.GFISolutions.com <http://www.gfisolutions.com/> www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/>
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
______________________________________________________________ ______________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
I think as you do that achieving At-Large community representation on the ICANN board is essential. Let's see what the rest of the NA RALO people think about the idea. If they agree we should work towards this goal, I think we have a better chance of achieving it from inside than from outside the organization.
Maybe there's a better way. Any suggestions?
This tells me that if we do a NARALO, we should do it in a very low profile way and say, ok, here's your RALO, we still don't have any meaningful representation. The bigger deal we make of a RALO, the more ICANN can point to it and say, look, here's the wonderful at-large participation. For a good example of what not to do, see the hoopla around the LACRALO. R's, John
Dear John and Luc, The issue has always revolved around "exclusion". ICANN does not want certain sets of people to influence or vote within policy recommending or policy ratifying venues. Allow me to point to a recent example. Policy discussions will be held in Marina del Rey on 22-25 February on the topic of new gTLDs and contractual conditions for existing TLDs. Members of the General Assembly discussion group have held sustained discussions on these topics during the entirety of the last twelve months, and we have submitted dozens of pages of consensus-based written commentary. While ICANN financially supports constituency member participation in these face to face sessions, they have denied GA representatives funding to attending these policy-recommending events (see the denial of request below). We are excluded from the process. We are ignored to the same extent that ALAC members have been ignored over the years. Folks on the GA list (who are just as much members of the At-Large as you or I) have attempted to work within the system for years... ICANN continues to reject their participation. Brief history lesson: ICANN formally eliminated the consensus-based open-to-all General Assembly (that had duly-elected representatives) during the same "reform" that saw the elimination of all At-Large directors. Working within a system designed to perpetuate exclusion is not in our best interest. ICANN only pays lip-service to the concept of multi-stakeholder participation... as far as they are concerned, we are not legitimate stakeholders in the process -- we are no more than the thorn in their side. Here is the record of my correspondence with the GNSO Secretariat: Dear Danny, Thank you, and my sincere good wishes to you for a successful and happy 2007. Travel funding for the upcoming policy discussions in Marina del Rey will be on the same basis as the funding for the August 2006 policy meeting in Amsterdam which allowed support for one representative per constituency, the nominating committee appointees to the GNSO Council, official liaisons to the GNSO Council, and the committee and task force chairs. Unfortunately there is no funding available beyond the categories mentioned above. We are making extensive arrangements for remote participation. Additional information on this will be forthcoming soon. The ga mailing list has contributed valuable discussions to the new gTLD process which have been appreciated and acknowledged. We look forward to continued participation by individuals who post on the ga mailing list. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Danny Younger a écrit :
Hello Glen,
Happy New Year and best wishes.
Please advise if travel funding will be made available for representatives from the GA to attend these upcoming policy discussions in Marina del Rey. As you know, GA members have devoted considerable time in sustained discussions on the topic of new gTLDs (and I was able to earlier relate the preliminary GA viewpoint through my unfunded participation at the Washington session).
Allow me to further remind you of the following language in the current ICANN Budget: "This year ICANN has also included a provision to provide some assistance to selected volunteer members of the ICANN community who could not otherwise attend task force or other ICANN meetings. Travel assistance will be provided on a case-by-case basis only after the trip request is evaluated and deemed to have a value-added component for ICANN and the community."
The GA perspective is a value-added component that should be respected in this process. I look forward to hearing from you, and I look forward to having a number of GA participants attending this session.
Best regards, Danny Younger
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:33:12 +0100 From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> To: gtld-council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [gtld-council] Revised Interim Meeting dates ,22 - 25 February 2007
[To: gtld-council@gnso.icann.org] [To: pdp-pcceg-feb06@gnso.icann.org]
Dear All,
This is confirm the revised dates for the GNSO policy meeting in Marina del Rey on Thursday 22 to Sunday 25 February 2007 to refine the new gTLD recommendations, and in particular to discuss implementation guidelines, (PDPDec05) with the staff and to refine the work on the policies for contractual conditions, existing gTLDs (PDPFeb06). The meeting will take place at the Courtyard by Marriott, Los >>> Angeles Marina del Rey, 13480 Maxella Avenue, Marina del Rey, CA 90292. Rooms have been reserved for the participants so as soon as you know your travel plans, please let me know so that I confirm the hotel bookings with your dates.
Travel funding will be similar to the Amsterdam meeting and further details will follow, but in the mean time please keep these dates free for the meeting.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Jacqui, Carlton I wonder if you could share your thoughts on the below? You were involved in LACRALO throughout. What was your impression of how the formation went and what the big challenges are for LACRALO going forward? Cheers, Jacob. John L wrote:
I think as you do that achieving At-Large community representation on the ICANN board is essential. Let's see what the rest of the NA RALO people think about the idea. If they agree we should work towards this goal, I think we have a better chance of achieving it from inside than from outside the organization.
Maybe there's a better way. Any suggestions?
This tells me that if we do a NARALO, we should do it in a very low profile way and say, ok, here's your RALO, we still don't have any meaningful representation. The bigger deal we make of a RALO, the more ICANN can point to it and say, look, here's the wonderful at-large participation. For a good example of what not to do, see the hoopla around the LACRALO.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
These are quite interesting and helpful. On the language issue, if we need French we should consider whether Spanish should be required. As a practical matter, I do not see the NARALO producing many original documents, so it may be a non-issue. Primarily, the RALOs will be sending information from ICANN to the ALSs and transmitting any responses from the ALSs back to ICANN. The original documents will be a call for statements of interest for the ALAC positions and the subsequent announcement of the selection. On the Secretariat function, will this be financially supported by ICANN? How big is this function? I don't see it as much more than maintaining some mailing lists and arranging for periodic conference calls, so I assume it could be done by volunteers. I don't know that I would limit the Secretariat to the language requirements, since you'd be left seeking a Spanish speaking-French Canadian. So long as the Secretariat has the ability to rely on translation services, when necessary or appropriate, the language requirement should be satisfied. What more needs to be said about this draft? I'm not sure that they need more than minor tinkering to be made effective for us. Bret
Re: "Primarily, the RALOs will be sending information from ICANN to the ALSs and transmitting any responses from the ALSs back to ICANN." Bret, This strikes me as a particularly stupid reason to build an organization. Most at-large groups know how to read the homepage of the ICANN website. Many are already subscribed to the ICANN email newsletter and to the ICANN email news alerts, and of course, many pay attention to internet-related developments. These at-large groups also know how to communicate with ICANN directly. CDT isn't shy about sending a letter to ICANN; neither are other at-large organizations that track ICANN activities. We don't need a RALO to relay responses back to a committee for forwarding to the ICANN Board. If a committee is needed to review organizational responses, the already established Non-Commercial Constituency would fit the bill nicely. So, for what purpose are you building this needless bureaucracy? Best wishes, Danny --- Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
These are quite interesting and helpful.
On the language issue, if we need French we should consider whether Spanish should be required. As a practical matter, I do not see the NARALO producing many original documents, so it may be a non-issue. Primarily, the RALOs will be sending information from ICANN to the ALSs and transmitting any responses from the ALSs back to ICANN. The original documents will be a call for statements of interest for the ALAC positions and the subsequent announcement of the selection.
On the Secretariat function, will this be financially supported by ICANN? How big is this function? I don't see it as much more than maintaining some mailing lists and arranging for periodic conference calls, so I assume it could be done by volunteers. I don't know that I would limit the Secretariat to the language requirements, since you'd be left seeking a Spanish speaking-French Canadian. So long as the Secretariat has the ability to rely on translation services, when necessary or appropriate, the language requirement should be satisfied.
What more needs to be said about this draft? I'm not sure that they need more than minor tinkering to be made effective for us.
Bret
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
This strikes me as a particularly stupid reason to build an organization.
I agree, which is why we're building something ultra-lightweight. I think of it as building a capability more than building an organization. The simple goal here is to build a facility for electing 2 ALAC members and exchanging information. Then we're done. Bret
Re: The simple goal here is to build a facility for electing 2 ALAC members and exchanging information. Bret, You well know that there are plenty of lists through which information can be exchanged -- we are both on many of these lists already. Building an organization solely for the sake of electing a few people to a Committee that has steadfastly refused to fight for At-Large representation on the ICANN Board is neither a noble nor worthy purpose. Pursuing this course of action is nothing less than admitting that you have given up the pursuit of representation in favor of the dollop of "participation" that has been handed you by those that have already usurped your rights. Why are you buying into this farce? What do you hope to achieve through this type of groveling? If you really seek to advance the At-Large interest, then work with us to establish an At-Large Supporting Organization that elects members to the Board. This pale substitute (the RALO) is not what any of us wanted... why then should we accept that which serves to institutionalize the denial of our rights? best wishes, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
I'm sorry that I cannot remember the speakers on today's call, but one person noted the need for a greater North American voice in Internet governance generally. I understood this to be a call for policy advice and advocacy from a new organization in the broadest sense, where ICANN was simply one aspect of the organization's work. I believe they have discussed this same idea in the European RALO organizational meetings and were considering incorporating as a separate legal entity, so they would have a legal existence separate from and outside of ICANN. Did I understand this proposal correctly? Is the call to create a new organization, with an independent legal structure, to represent North American interests in all Internet Governance fora? I don't know that I would be against this, per se, but I do think it presents some hard issues about financial resources and sustainability. Bret
Bret, What was mentioned was the Canadian Council on Internet Governance. The CCIG is meant as a forum to discuss Canadian Internet governance issues, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: 12 janvier 2007 16:52 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Scope and Purpose of RALO
I'm sorry that I cannot remember the speakers on today's call, but one person noted the need for a greater North American voice in Internet governance generally. I understood this to be a call for policy advice and advocacy from a new organization in the broadest sense, where ICANN was simply one aspect of the organization's work.
I believe they have discussed this same idea in the European RALO organizational meetings and were considering incorporating as a separate legal entity, so they would have a legal existence separate from and outside of ICANN.
Did I understand this proposal correctly? Is the call to create a new organization, with an independent legal structure, to represent North American interests in all Internet Governance fora? I don't know that I would be against this, per se, but I do think it presents some hard issues about financial resources and sustainability.
Bret
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
participants (6)
-
Bret Fausett -
Danny Younger -
ICANN At Large Staff -
Jacob Malthouse -
John L -
Luc Faubert