Bret Fausett wrote:

...

* Create two new ALAC positions, appointed by the Nominating Committee, both from Asia, to reflect that region's increased proportion of global Internet users

I understand the thinking here, but I can see some downside to "proportional representation," either by absolute population or population of Internet users.

I'm curious to know peoples' feelings about the other side of this, in that they have chosen to bring these new ALAC members in through the NomComm rather than elected by RALOs. This recommendation, should it be accepted, further increases the proportion of ALAC members who are appointed rather than elected, which IMO reduces accountability and reverses the move of ALAC from a bunch of internally selected - experts to a true grassroots movement. Am I the only one bothered by this?

First, are you going to take away a representative from Africa under the same theory?

They were not only looking at raw numbers, but also potential for growth. So Africa is still seen as high numbers, even if most of that is _potential_ rather than current.

Second, even within a region, the ALAC representatives aren't distributed in accord with the population. If you have proportional representation across the five regions, don't you then have to do it within the regions? If the point of increasing the AP ALAC members is to reflect the population, doesn't same principle dictate that of the five proposed Asia-Pacific representatives, China always have at least three and India at least one? I see no real way of making this work in a manner that reflects the population. Five ALAC representatives from English-speaking Australia and New Zealand wouldn't really address the problems the Review Committee is trying to solve.

Then there are the Asean countries, which would get totally squeezed out between the natural gravitation of the English-speaking countries (plus Japan) and the high populations of India and China. I suppose this is why they put their faith in the NomComm to keep the situation geographically balanced rather than keep it to democratic numbers games alone. Still, there must be a better way to do this.

Finally, has there been a complaint that some needs are being unmet by the current representatives? What are those complaints? If there are none, perhaps we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Good point. Maybe the other regions have privately expressed dissatisfation with those aggressive North Americans and want to give a bigger (if not louder) voice elsewhere. Unfortunately (at least from my perspective) if it hadn't been for NARALO then ALAC would have completely bowed down to other interests on issues such as tasting, so I don't see how this will have a positive effect on ALAC's ability to fulfil its mandate. There are voices here who say ALAC was too compromising on tasting even _with_ the pressure from NARALO to get rid of the AGP. Imagine what the position would have been had the voice of NARALO been further diminished. - Evan

Or, in other words, the NARALO effort was not worthy of any single ALAC vote in favour of it. From the outside view it seems as though as any such effort never existed. Sad but reality. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik Filipp Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:16 AM To: Evan Leibovitch; Bret Fausett Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:36 AM To: Bret Fausett Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published

There are voices here who say ALAC was too compromising on tasting even _with_ the pressure from NARALO to get rid of the AGP. Imagine what the position would have been had the voice of NARALO been

further diminished.

- Evan

I am afraid, the position would be almost the same. The final tasting proposal was almost completely taken from Jeff Neumans's .BIZ registry vision just decorated with some cosmetics. The ALAC in fact seconded it unanimously and did not append any remarkable input. Despite all the valuable effort coming from the NARALO community. Dominik ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

Bret Fausett wrote:

I very much like the fact that one ALAC representative from each region comes from the NomComm,

Please elaborate. I see NomComm as a way to repress -- or at least inhibit the growth of -- a distinct character for ALAC. It has seemed to me that the appointees exist to ensure that ALAC does not stray too far from ICANN culture. What is rationalized as a benign injection of "wisdom" is, IMO a euphamism for "conventional wisdom", retarding advocacy and points of view beyond the status quo. It seems that, in the recommendations, At-Large is to be tolerated so long as measures exist to ensure that it doesn't get too confrontational. The changes that are suggested -- wikis rather than mailing lists, rejection of the board vote, more NomComm appointees, expanded scrutiny of ALSs while more than one-third of ALAC is beyond any scrutiny once installed -- all point to an obsession with avoiding confrontation. (And when ICANN is served with confrontation it can't avoid -- in court -- it backs down rather than defends the interests of the public it is supposed to serve. Does there need to be a class-action lawsuit to get ICANN to listen to the public?) What positive actions does the all-appointed (pre-RALO) ALAC have to claim for all its years of existence? It took _staff_ such as Jacob to do the outreach that brought in ALSs like mine. Why are there no appointees to ALAC's other big advisory group, the GAC? Because governments would never stand for that, yet the public interest has no choice but to have arbitrary "wisdom" inflicted upon it. That's my POV. I really would like to hear a reasonable defence of NomComm appointees to ALAC that doesn't use the term "wisdom". I haven't heard one yet. - Evan

At 17/06/2008 12:32 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Bret Fausett wrote:

...

I very much like the fact that one ALAC representative from each region comes from the NomComm,

Please elaborate. I see NomComm as a way to repress -- or at least inhibit the growth of -- a distinct character for ALAC. It has seemed to me that the appointees exist to ensure that ALAC does not stray too far from ICANN culture. What is rationalized as a benign injection of "wisdom" is, IMO a euphamism for "conventional wisdom", retarding advocacy and points of view beyond the status quo.

I find this a rather curious comment. Many (perhaps most) of the NomCom appointees to the ALAC and GNSO that I am familiar with have little or no background with ICANN before their appointment. It is certainly the situation in my case. Also, ALAC currently names almost 1/3 of the NomCom. If these people are helping to appoint such poor contributors to the At-Large cause, then we are either naming people who don't espouse our views, or who are particularly poor in persuading their colleagues regarding what is needed. Alan

Alan Greenberg wrote:

I find this a rather curious comment. Many (perhaps most) of the NomCom appointees to the ALAC and GNSO that I am familiar with have little or no background with ICANN before their appointment. It is certainly the situation in my case.

The criteria -- formal or informal -- used to seek and choose candidates helps enforce a certain kind of philosophical orthodoxy. ICANN experience is not necessarily a component of that. When was the last time that the NomComm appointed someone for ALAC who had _zero_ experience in Internet governance? This characteristic is shared by the overwhelming majority of the public-at-large which ALAC is supposed to represent. It fits me and quite a few other people here. If ICANN wants to educate and hear from the otherwise-disinterested public, then it /must/ be aware of the perspective of such "IG virgins". And yet a lack of such experience would almost certainly be a cause for disqualification for NomComm consideration.

Also, ALAC currently names almost 1/3 of the NomCom. If these people are helping to appoint such poor contributors to the At-Large cause, then we are either naming people who don't espouse our views, or who are particularly poor in persuading their colleagues regarding what is needed.

I'm having difficulty constructing the point of what that sentence is trying to say, especially who is referred to as "we". If the point is that the elected ALAC reps are failing to convince the appointed ones of their POV, my response would be -- so what? Why should the representatives of the grassroots have to convince non-grassroots ALAC members of validity of their cause? How many other interest groups have such "devils advocates" inflicted upon them by ICANN? Such defence of ALAC's views will have to happen anyway once they confront those of ICANN's other constituencies, at the level of the NSOs and the Board. But under the current regime, our positions -- as in, the actual initiatives and views of the grassroots -- are compromised and watered down before they even leave ALAC. I prefer to deal with the general question differently. Rather than engage on the merits of appointees, I want to be told what ICANN has against giving full trust within ALAC to democratic vote and accountable delegates. If there are groups that are under-represented, well then that's what outreach is for. We address that problem by empowering the public, not by pretending their interests are represented by unaccountable appointees. - Evan

Alan and all, I get the impression that some within the ALAC do not want NonCom members within the ALAC. Why not if so? Isn't the ALAC an open and transparent organization? Alan Greenberg wrote:

At 18/06/2008 11:01 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Alan Greenberg wrote:

...

Also, ALAC currently names almost 1/3 of the NomCom. If these people are helping to appoint such poor contributors to the At-Large cause, then we are either naming people who don't espouse our views, or who are particularly poor in persuading their colleagues regarding what is needed.

I'm having difficulty constructing the point of what that sentence is trying to say, especially who is referred to as "we".

If the point is that the elected ALAC reps are failing to convince the appointed ones of their POV, my response would be -- so what? Why should the representatives of the grassroots have to convince non-grassroots ALAC members of validity of their cause? How many other interest groups have such "devils advocates" inflicted upon them by ICANN? Such defence of ALAC's views will have to happen anyway once they confront those of ICANN's other constituencies, at the level of the NSOs and the Board. But under the current regime, our positions -- as in, the actual initiatives and views of the grassroots -- are compromised and watered down before they even leave ALAC.

I prefer to deal with the general question differently. Rather than engage on the merits of appointees, I want to be told what ICANN has against giving full trust within ALAC to democratic vote and accountable delegates. If there are groups that are under-represented, well then that's what outreach is for. We address that problem by empowering the public, not by pretending their interests are represented by unaccountable appointees.

- Evan Guess I wasn't clear. Here is the sentence again, with definition for the nouns and pronouns:

Also, ALAC currently names almost 1/3 of the NomCom. If these people {the people the ALAC has put on the NomCom} are helping to appoint such poor contributors to the At-Large cause, then we {the ALAC, specifically the Interim ALAC, since we really haven't seen the end-product of a NomCom with our last set of appointees on it} are either naming people {the people we send to the NomCom} who don't espouse our views, or who are particularly poor in persuading their colleagues {the other 12 voting members of the NomCom} regarding what is needed.

Sorry if I am belaboring the point, but I need make this my final post on the subject so that I can go complete my laundry and then can catch a plane tomorrow.

For the record, I wasn't making a case for NomCom appointees on the ALAC, I as just commenting on the curiosity of a system which apparently so poorly meets your (and presumably others) expectations of ALAC members.

Alan

------ 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 ------

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

On Jun 17, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Bret Fausett wrote:

...

I very much like the fact that one ALAC representative from each region comes from the NomComm,

Please elaborate.

I know that in the year I served on the Nominating Committee, we tried very hard to use the Nominating Committee appointments to supplement the skills of the various groups for which we had responsibility (Board, GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC). We thought about what those groups needed, received input from the groups themselves about what was needed, considered input from the entire community about what was needed, and then found and appointed people to fill what we believed were the most important needs. In my year, this meant bringing some new faces to the ICANN Board. We especially looked for people with financial backgrounds, for the Board finance and audit committees. We wanted someone from China on the Board. It also meant appointing an older, more experienced face to the GNSO, which was having difficulties at the time, and which we thought could benefit from the experience of a former Board member. It meant bringing people with past experience in organization building and recruiting to the new and developing ALAC. Nominating Committees vary from year to year, but observation of recent results tells me it still works much this way. The Nominating Committee is uniquely positioned to fill in gaps in what the other processes don't produce.* I think it's the part of ICANN that has worked best over the last few years. Bret * The fact that NomComms pick skill sets as much as they pick people means that if you've applied in the past and not been selected, it's probably because you didn't have the skill set that was needed at that particular time. I know for a fact that people who have been passed in some years have been selected in succeeding years, including for Board seats, so if you're interested, keep your name in consideration by reapplying.

Indeed an interesting document..., the following words can immediately be carved in marble "In our experience, effective Boards make most of their decisions through a consensus-building process, rather than the mechanism of a formal vote. If the ALAC Board Liaison had a right to vote, this might lead to a reduction in consensus-building in favour of a more confrontational, majority-seeking approach." There are six out of fifteen board voting members from Adress, Generic and Country-Code Names Supporting Organizations each having two votes. Does this mean that At-Large supposed to represent wide user community could be considered more confrontational than three tiny, more or less closed societies existing solely within the ICANN structure? And who could be seeking a majority approach if not a body that is inherently established and developed for the purpose of advocating the interests of the vast majority of internet users in a transparent manner? Registries or registrars? Or other appointees nominated by another opaque body such as NomComm? In fact, all, or almost all board positions should be nominated by At-Large community ensuring the directors stay accountable and under continual control of the community they have risen from. A ridiculous, upside down logic. I would personally recommend that At-Large refuse the draft document as a whole due to a false logic it is based upon. Dominik

Bret Fausett wrote:

I know that in the year I served on the Nominating Committee, we tried very hard to use the Nominating Committee appointments to supplement the skills of the various groups for which we had responsibility (Board, GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC). We thought about what those groups needed, received input from the groups themselves about what was needed, considered input from the entire community about what was needed, and then found and appointed people to fill what we believed were the most important needs. In my year, this meant bringing some new faces to the ICANN Board. We especially looked for people with financial backgrounds, for the Board finance and audit committees. We wanted someone from China on the Board. It also meant appointing an older, more experienced face to the GNSO, which was having difficulties at the time, and which we thought could benefit from the experience of a former Board member. It meant bringing people with past experience in organization building and recruiting to the new and developing ALAC.

Thank you very much for this perspective, Bret. It certainly indicates that the process has some positives. However I still can't say that I see that benefit outweighing the negatives. To me, the main negative is the entrusting of a fairly small group, who are themselves selected on criteria that injects bias, to make judgement calls on what various bodies "need". Perhaps the broader community might have indicated different priorities and different needs. Certainly, since I have been involved in ICANN I have never _once_ been consulted, as an individual or as part of a group, on any issues related to work of the NomComm -- even from the person that this region's ALAC reps chose to represent our interests (a person, I might add, who is not even an at-Large but an employee of a registrar). So the consultative quality may have been part of what you personally added to the role but is certainly not a requirement. The NomComm, like the people it selects, are accountable to nothing but an abstract notion of what is "good for ICANN". I personally believe that this very notion _must_ be subject to definition and interpretation by the grassroots, the consumers of the Internet, so to speak. Keeping it within a group that is by nature elitist and unaccountable will likely ensure that the grassroots will have no influence in its work. And I can easily see a suitation in which the NomComm might see ALAC as being too rebellious and thus stack the NomComm appointees with people chosen because of their perceived capacity to put out the fire, so to speak. Perhaps that sentiment -- and its effect on the NomComm choices of ALAC reps -- already reflects such a perception. And the ALAC review draft seems intent on maintaining that status quo -- in fact regressing, by advocating the increase in the proportion of NomComms in ALAC. - Evan

Bret Fausett wrote:

I suppose I'm having difficulty understanding what different accountability mechanism you are recommending, because from my perspective, everyone in an official ICANN position, from your position as NARALO Chair all the way to the CEO and Chairman of the Board, has an obligation to act for the "good of ICANN." That obligation necessarily trumps any other obligation to any other body, including one's employer, constituency, or ALS.

Agreed. However, there are clear discrepancies between the views of "the good if ICANN" as expressed by ALAC, other constituencies, the Board, and the NomComm itself.

That said, we can, and should in a healthy ICANN, have differing views about what is "good for ICANN."

My POV is that ALAC _must_, as best as it is able, reflect the vision of "what is good for ICANN" as expressed by the public at large. That is, indeed, why this body even exists. And I firmly believe that determining such vision is best done through community involvement through their representatives, not appointees lacking any connection to the grassroots. Such detached appointees just get in the way of the real goal of extracting public opinion. And if the NomComm finds people with strong ties to the grassroots, that begs the question.... why aren't they naturally involved in ALAC anyway at that point, either directly or through an ALS? That should be outreach activity, not appointments... - Evan

Nick and all, I agree with the sentament. But in parctice, as has been repeatedly demonstrated withing the NARALO and the ALAC it is clear that there is significant desire for selective censorship of interested parties, myself and our members especially it seems, to be able to remark and comment openly and freely on the ALAC and NARALO forums as you well know Nick. Such does not boad well for the whole ALAC idea... Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report.

The consultation going on now is so that the draft may be publicly discussed in Paris, for those who feel that something is missing (as in you said something to the review which you believe has been left out), and this text hasn't been reviewed by the Board, the ALAC Review Committee, or anyone else.

This is not to say that comments aren't welcome - on the contrary, as you know I'm always asking for the community to comment more, not less :). I just want to make sure everyone understands that the report will have a full comment period after it is finalised. This is the first of two comment periods on the report and I'm sure any next steps after the report will similarly be posted for public comment too, just as you have seen with the GNSO Review.

I've also made a request that this comment period be lengthened, as translations will not be ready until only a few days before the present comment period is meant to end, and without translations many in AFRALO and LACRALO will be unable to respond on an equal basis to everyone else.

If you feel that the comment period is too short - do comment in that vein to the comment address and let Westlake know in Paris (for those of you who are going to be in Paris).

Of course, the point made that any NARALO perspectives which are made clear can only help NARALO members attending Paris is IMHO entirely relevant, FWIW.

I hope these comments are helpful - that's certainly the intent.

On 18/06/2008 21:13, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:

Hello fellow NARALOites,

I have heard from a number of our RALO members on the issue of the draft report, but far from everyone and not even a majority.

I believe this issue is important, because if accepted as-is the proposed changes will diminish the role of At-Large in ICANN goings-on at a time when this role requires enhancement. All the well-intentioned policy work we can do will be impeded or "consensus-ed" into the ground, with no real clout at the Board level.

Those who have spoken on the issue that I have heard from have all been critical, but this is far from a widespread protest.

I would like to know whether there is interest in having a NARALO position on the draft report before the Paris meeting. Having this would help guide your representatives there (myself, Darlene, Beau and Robert) on the inevitable discussions on the issue that will take place. Perhaps we may even be able to prod the global ALAC into action of its own.

I have no problem writing a initial position to post for endorsement -- but it would reflect my own deep negative reaction which has already been described on this list. My time is very limited, however, and I would prefer not to start this if no interest exists in creating a regional position. If interest does exist, I can draft a brief statement (preferably working with others who would like to help) and see if, with any suggested modifications, it can be accepted by NARALO through consensus by Sunday morning.

Is this reasonable? Is a statement desirable? I find it very unnerving that there has been ZERO reaction on the global ALAC list except for Izumi's brief comment. If ALAC is not interested in staking out a membership-based position then I think NARALO needs to step up.

What does everyone else think? Feel free to reply privately, if that is appropriate for you, and I can incorporate your comments anonymously. Even if there is no consensus on a region-wide point of view, all input is helpful.

- 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 ------

--

Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart ------ 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 ------

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

Vittorio and all, Thank you for actually stating the crux of the central problem with ICANN. Too much process, too far removed from users, and resulting in bad superseded policy nonconsensual decisions of impracticality. When this is addressed in removing levels of process and users of whatever sort have the practical right to self determination within and from without the ICANN structure, than and only than will more reasoned practical policy be determined and effected. As the ICANN process you nicely outline in brief below, stands now governments, and special interests groups have far too much say so in determining policy decisions, many of which have clearly shown to no work or serve the user community well and were forewarned of such. Vittorio Bertola wrote:

Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:

...

I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report.

I would like to add that there are two different parts in this work.

The first one is the external reviewer compiling their review and making some recommendations for future developments.

The second one is the Board - first through its dedicated committee, then through the Board Governance Committee and finally through the Board itself - discussing the report with the ICANN community and understanding whether the recommendations are really sound, and whether and how they should be implemented, or whether something entirely different should be done.

I see it unlikely that the ALAC Review WG could eventually recommend something completely different from the conclusions of the review, but this is certainly not impossible.

The ALAC Review WG has organized two different events in Paris, which more or less correspond to the two parts above; the first one is aimed at supplying Westlake with final comments on their text so that they can remove the "draft" label from their report, while the second one is the beginning of the subsequent WG discussion process:

http://par.icann.org/en/23jun08/workshop/at-large-review

http://par.icann.org/en/25jun08/workshop/bgc-at-large-review

We hope to see participation in both events, but their scope is fundamentally different and I hope that appropriate comments will be made for each of the sessions.

Personally, I do not have final comments yet, but my first impression is that, even if the recommendations are reasonable, there was not much effort in exploring radical changes to ICANN's basic architecture; however, possibly that lies outside of the mandate of an external reviewer of a single structure on the ICANN map, while it's more of a discussion for the Board itself; so it might become a more prominent theme in the second phase of the process.

Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

Darlene, Did this really happen? No other reviewers except Westlake Consulting were considered? And that the At-Large views were not mentioned in the draft report? If this is true then a pretty scornful and derisive act from BoD towards At-Large community. I think At-Large should react strongly and adequately. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thompson, Darlene Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:26 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review -- NARALO position? Well, I *definitely* think that we need to create a position paper delineating the various points about this report. I think that we should take it right from the bottom up of why other qualified reviewers weren't even considered and why our views weren't even referenced in the report. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: 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 Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:13 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review -- NARALO position? Hello fellow NARALOites, I have heard from a number of our RALO members on the issue of the draft report, but far from everyone and not even a majority. I believe this issue is important, because if accepted as-is the proposed changes will diminish the role of At-Large in ICANN goings-on at a time when this role requires enhancement. All the well-intentioned policy work we can do will be impeded or "consensus-ed" into the ground, with no real clout at the Board level. Those who have spoken on the issue that I have heard from have all been critical, but this is far from a widespread protest. I would like to know whether there is interest in having a NARALO position on the draft report before the Paris meeting. Having this would help guide your representatives there (myself, Darlene, Beau and Robert) on the inevitable discussions on the issue that will take place. Perhaps we may even be able to prod the global ALAC into action of its own. I have no problem writing a initial position to post for endorsement -- but it would reflect my own deep negative reaction which has already been described on this list. My time is very limited, however, and I would prefer not to start this if no interest exists in creating a regional position. If interest does exist, I can draft a brief statement (preferably working with others who would like to help) and see if, with any suggested modifications, it can be accepted by NARALO through consensus by Sunday morning. Is this reasonable? Is a statement desirable? I find it very unnerving that there has been ZERO reaction on the global ALAC list except for Izumi's brief comment. If ALAC is not interested in staking out a membership-based position then I think NARALO needs to step up. What does everyone else think? Feel free to reply privately, if that is appropriate for you, and I can incorporate your comments anonymously. Even if there is no consensus on a region-wide point of view, all input is helpful. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

Dominik, I cannot say for sure that "no other reviewers except Westlake Consulting were considered." I just know of one very specific case of a Canadian group with true world-wide scope that has all kinds of research background and a long background in the lists with ICANN that weren't even asked for an interview. It makes me wonder how many interviews did they have? How did they select Westlake? I've asked this on-list and was told by staff that they did't have time to deal with this right now but would put me in touch with the appropriate people in Paris. That REALLY bothers me that they will not state to the public how this was done. WONDERFUL transparency, eh? Evan and I cannot seem to find any of the NARALO's views in there. I will be reading the full report myself at lunch time today to confirm this. But, yes, I agree with you. Totally scornful. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Dominik Filipp [mailto:dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:46 AM To: Thompson, Darlene; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review -- NARALO position? Darlene, Did this really happen? No other reviewers except Westlake Consulting were considered? And that the At-Large views were not mentioned in the draft report? If this is true then a pretty scornful and derisive act from BoD towards At-Large community. I think At-Large should react strongly and adequately. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thompson, Darlene Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:26 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review -- NARALO position? Well, I *definitely* think that we need to create a position paper delineating the various points about this report. I think that we should take it right from the bottom up of why other qualified reviewers weren't even considered and why our views weren't even referenced in the report. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: 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 Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:13 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review -- NARALO position? Hello fellow NARALOites, I have heard from a number of our RALO members on the issue of the draft report, but far from everyone and not even a majority. I believe this issue is important, because if accepted as-is the proposed changes will diminish the role of At-Large in ICANN goings-on at a time when this role requires enhancement. All the well-intentioned policy work we can do will be impeded or "consensus-ed" into the ground, with no real clout at the Board level. Those who have spoken on the issue that I have heard from have all been critical, but this is far from a widespread protest. I would like to know whether there is interest in having a NARALO position on the draft report before the Paris meeting. Having this would help guide your representatives there (myself, Darlene, Beau and Robert) on the inevitable discussions on the issue that will take place. Perhaps we may even be able to prod the global ALAC into action of its own. I have no problem writing a initial position to post for endorsement -- but it would reflect my own deep negative reaction which has already been described on this list. My time is very limited, however, and I would prefer not to start this if no interest exists in creating a regional position. If interest does exist, I can draft a brief statement (preferably working with others who would like to help) and see if, with any suggested modifications, it can be accepted by NARALO through consensus by Sunday morning. Is this reasonable? Is a statement desirable? I find it very unnerving that there has been ZERO reaction on the global ALAC list except for Izumi's brief comment. If ALAC is not interested in staking out a membership-based position then I think NARALO needs to step up. What does everyone else think? Feel free to reply privately, if that is appropriate for you, and I can incorporate your comments anonymously. Even if there is no consensus on a region-wide point of view, all input is helpful. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

With respect to the points about how the reviewers were chosen, I can once again reiterate that we will ensure that any members of the community who wish to know more about this are introduced to the members of the ALAC Review Committee, chaired by Tricia Drakes, who reviewed those proposals received to the original RFP. I don't believe that anyone has ever refused to state how the choice was made - certainly I have never heard anything like this - though I did say that we were very busy preparing for Paris and would ensure that all questions were answered in Paris. On 19/06/2008 16:54, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote: Dominik, I cannot say for sure that "no other reviewers except Westlake Consulting were considered." I just know of one very specific case of a Canadian group with true world-wide scope that has all kinds of research background and a long background in the lists with ICANN that weren't even asked for an interview. It makes me wonder how many interviews did they have? How did they select Westlake? I've asked this on-list and was told by staff that they did't have time to deal with this right now but would put me in touch with the appropriate people in Paris. That REALLY bothers me that they will not state to the public how this was done. WONDERFUL transparency, eh? Evan and I cannot seem to find any of the NARALO's views in there. I will be reading the full report myself at lunch time today to confirm this. But, yes, I agree with you. Totally scornful. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Dominik Filipp [mailto:dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:46 AM To: Thompson, Darlene; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review -- NARALO position? Darlene, Did this really happen? No other reviewers except Westlake Consulting were considered? And that the At-Large views were not mentioned in the draft report? If this is true then a pretty scornful and derisive act from BoD towards At-Large community. I think At-Large should react strongly and adequately. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thompson, Darlene Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:26 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review -- NARALO position? Well, I *definitely* think that we need to create a position paper delineating the various points about this report. I think that we should take it right from the bottom up of why other qualified reviewers weren't even considered and why our views weren't even referenced in the report. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: 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 Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:13 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review -- NARALO position? Hello fellow NARALOites, I have heard from a number of our RALO members on the issue of the draft report, but far from everyone and not even a majority. I believe this issue is important, because if accepted as-is the proposed changes will diminish the role of At-Large in ICANN goings-on at a time when this role requires enhancement. All the well-intentioned policy work we can do will be impeded or "consensus-ed" into the ground, with no real clout at the Board level. Those who have spoken on the issue that I have heard from have all been critical, but this is far from a widespread protest. I would like to know whether there is interest in having a NARALO position on the draft report before the Paris meeting. Having this would help guide your representatives there (myself, Darlene, Beau and Robert) on the inevitable discussions on the issue that will take place. Perhaps we may even be able to prod the global ALAC into action of its own. I have no problem writing a initial position to post for endorsement -- but it would reflect my own deep negative reaction which has already been described on this list. My time is very limited, however, and I would prefer not to start this if no interest exists in creating a regional position. If interest does exist, I can draft a brief statement (preferably working with others who would like to help) and see if, with any suggested modifications, it can be accepted by NARALO through consensus by Sunday morning. Is this reasonable? Is a statement desirable? I find it very unnerving that there has been ZERO reaction on the global ALAC list except for Izumi's brief comment. If ALAC is not interested in staking out a membership-based position then I think NARALO needs to step up. What does everyone else think? Feel free to reply privately, if that is appropriate for you, and I can incorporate your comments anonymously. Even if there is no consensus on a region-wide point of view, all input is helpful. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ ------ 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 ------ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart