Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Here are my contributions to the statement. I think this time, I may have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for the next 24-48 hours -- please work on this in my absense. ] Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2 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". Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development of a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document nor afforded the opportunity to comment upon its interim drafts. The document, in its final form, does not address many issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad community of registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders. Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in the new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN’s external perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason. The process used to create this document was highly objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not communicated at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or RALOs. It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these changes before the end of the comment period. Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would be inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document. It does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs. 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
I support this version. Gareth On 23-Apr-08, at 8:06 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here are my contributions to the statement. I think this time, I may have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for the next 24-48 hours -- please work on this in my absense. ]
Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2
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".
Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development of a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document nor afforded the opportunity to comment upon its interim drafts.
The document, in its final form, does not address many issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad community of registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders.
Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in the new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN’s external perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason.
The process used to create this document was highly objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not communicated at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or RALOs. It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these changes before the end of the comment period.
Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would be inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document. It does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs.
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
------ 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 ------
I, too, support this version. Nice job Danny & Evan! 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 Gareth Shearman Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:57 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 I support this version. Gareth On 23-Apr-08, at 8:06 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here are my contributions to the statement. I think this time, I may have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for the next 24-48 hours -- please work on this in my absense. ]
Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2
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".
Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development of a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document nor afforded the opportunity to comment upon its interim drafts.
The document, in its final form, does not address many issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad community of registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders.
Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in the new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN's external perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason.
The process used to create this document was highly objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not communicated at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or RALOs. It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these changes before the end of the comment period.
Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would be inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document. It does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs.
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
------ 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 ------
I don't support this approach. I think we should ask for a deadline extension and try to get a new draft document that speaks specifically to our concerns. Based on my experience with the ALAC review process, the ICANN is looking for suggestions on the way things ought to be. I think the reaction to this type of statement will be very negative and won't get us what we really want, or, to be frank, what I really want, which is maximum user representation in all the ICANN power centers in equal proportion to registrars and others who have nothing more than financial stakes in how ICANN operates. Personally, I think this document should specifically suggest what it is we want, rather than be a declaration of our disassociation from the process. This will just reassure everyone that the at-large can't agree on anything and get its act together (of all the regions, we are the only ones to object to this document and the process, which is not something I necessarily agree with, but is a political reality). Some of the other statements I have seen so far in this chain, which in a way I regret I sort of started, have made some suggestions in this vein. May I suggest NA RALO take a different approach, put together some of that specific feedback on the way we think things ought to work, ask for a deadline extension, and submit that. Also, though Alan Greenberg is nomcom appointed and not elected, he's a good guy who gives a heck of a lot of his time and is, in my opinion, taking an unfair hit. Beau -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Thompson, Darlene Sent: Thu 4/24/2008 9:40 AM To: Gareth Shearman; Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 I, too, support this version. Nice job Danny & Evan! 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 Gareth Shearman Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:57 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 I support this version. Gareth On 23-Apr-08, at 8:06 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here are my contributions to the statement. I think this time, I may have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for the next 24-48 hours -- please work on this in my absense. ]
Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2
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".
Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development of a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document nor afforded the opportunity to comment upon its interim drafts.
The document, in its final form, does not address many issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad community of registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders.
Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in the new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN's external perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason.
The process used to create this document was highly objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not communicated at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or RALOs. It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these changes before the end of the comment period.
Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would be inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document. It does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs.
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
------ 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 ------ *** Scanned
Beau, below are the comments that I just sent through to the BGC: When I think about restructuring the GNSO I begin by asking myself, "What broad communities should rightfully have a seat at this table"? As I look around I see four distinct communities that have a stake in the process: 1. Community: Providers of Registration and Connectivity Services a. Registries b. Registrars c. Resellers, Hosting Companies/ISPs 2. Community: Business a. Big Business & their Intellectual Property Attorneys b. Small Business & domainers 3. Community: Law Enforcement & Security Interests 4. Community: Public Interest a. Consumer Groups b. Civil Society Advocates i. Privacy ii. Freedom of Speech, etc. c. Registrant Rights Advocates For the sake of simplicity, fairness and to minimize council size to create a more effective body, I would recommend 3 Council seats for each broad community. Clearly, some constituent groups already exist as recognized entities while others would need to be formed. The ICANN Board has the authority to create new constituencies on its own motion. It should do so. regards, Danny --- "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
I don't support this approach.
I think we should ask for a deadline extension and try to get a new draft document that speaks specifically to our concerns. Based on my experience with the ALAC review process, the ICANN is looking for suggestions on the way things ought to be. I think the reaction to this type of statement will be very negative and won't get us what we really want, or, to be frank, what I really want, which is maximum user representation in all the ICANN power centers in equal proportion to registrars and others who have nothing more than financial stakes in how ICANN operates. Personally, I think this document should specifically suggest what it is we want, rather than be a declaration of our disassociation from the process. This will just reassure everyone that the at-large can't agree on anything and get its act together (of all the regions, we are the only ones to object to this document and the process, which is not something I necessarily agree with, but is a political reality).
Some of the other statements I have seen so far in this chain, which in a way I regret I sort of started, have made some suggestions in this vein. May I suggest NA RALO take a different approach, put together some of that specific feedback on the way we think things ought to work, ask for a deadline extension, and submit that.
Also, though Alan Greenberg is nomcom appointed and not elected, he's a good guy who gives a heck of a lot of his time and is, in my opinion, taking an unfair hit.
Beau
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Thompson, Darlene Sent: Thu 4/24/2008 9:40 AM To: Gareth Shearman; Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
I, too, support this version. Nice job Danny & Evan!
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 Gareth Shearman Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:57 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
I support this version.
Gareth
On 23-Apr-08, at 8:06 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here are my contributions to the statement. I think this time, I may have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for the next 24-48 hours -- please work on this in my absense. ]
Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2
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".
Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development of a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document nor afforded the opportunity to comment upon its interim drafts.
The document, in its final form, does not address many issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad community of registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders.
Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in the new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN's external perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason.
The process used to create this document was highly objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not communicated at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or RALOs. It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these changes before the end of the comment period.
Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would be inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document. It does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs.
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
------ 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 ------
*** Scanned
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Danny -- I'm in full agreement with what's here. Which, in a sense, restates the best of what was in the early draft and makes it more clear. I think this is more along the lines of what NA RALO should say -- if we just complain about process then we sort of look like hypocrites, since we complain there's too much process. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thu 4/24/2008 10:12 AM To: Brendler, Beau; Thompson, Darlene; Gareth Shearman; Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 Beau, below are the comments that I just sent through to the BGC: When I think about restructuring the GNSO I begin by asking myself, "What broad communities should rightfully have a seat at this table"? As I look around I see four distinct communities that have a stake in the process: 1. Community: Providers of Registration and Connectivity Services a. Registries b. Registrars c. Resellers, Hosting Companies/ISPs 2. Community: Business a. Big Business & their Intellectual Property Attorneys b. Small Business & domainers 3. Community: Law Enforcement & Security Interests 4. Community: Public Interest a. Consumer Groups b. Civil Society Advocates i. Privacy ii. Freedom of Speech, etc. c. Registrant Rights Advocates For the sake of simplicity, fairness and to minimize council size to create a more effective body, I would recommend 3 Council seats for each broad community. Clearly, some constituent groups already exist as recognized entities while others would need to be formed. The ICANN Board has the authority to create new constituencies on its own motion. It should do so. regards, Danny --- "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
I don't support this approach.
I think we should ask for a deadline extension and try to get a new draft document that speaks specifically to our concerns. Based on my experience with the ALAC review process, the ICANN is looking for suggestions on the way things ought to be. I think the reaction to this type of statement will be very negative and won't get us what we really want, or, to be frank, what I really want, which is maximum user representation in all the ICANN power centers in equal proportion to registrars and others who have nothing more than financial stakes in how ICANN operates. Personally, I think this document should specifically suggest what it is we want, rather than be a declaration of our disassociation from the process. This will just reassure everyone that the at-large can't agree on anything and get its act together (of all the regions, we are the only ones to object to this document and the process, which is not something I necessarily agree with, but is a political reality).
Some of the other statements I have seen so far in this chain, which in a way I regret I sort of started, have made some suggestions in this vein. May I suggest NA RALO take a different approach, put together some of that specific feedback on the way we think things ought to work, ask for a deadline extension, and submit that.
Also, though Alan Greenberg is nomcom appointed and not elected, he's a good guy who gives a heck of a lot of his time and is, in my opinion, taking an unfair hit.
Beau
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Thompson, Darlene Sent: Thu 4/24/2008 9:40 AM To: Gareth Shearman; Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
I, too, support this version. Nice job Danny & Evan!
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 Gareth Shearman Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:57 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
I support this version.
Gareth
On 23-Apr-08, at 8:06 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here are my contributions to the statement. I think this time, I may have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for the next 24-48 hours -- please work on this in my absense. ]
Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2
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".
Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development of a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document nor afforded the opportunity to comment upon its interim drafts.
The document, in its final form, does not address many issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad community of registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders.
Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in the new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN's external perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason.
The process used to create this document was highly objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not communicated at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or RALOs. It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these changes before the end of the comment period.
Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would be inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document. It does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs.
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
------ 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 ------
*** Scanned
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ *** Scanned
Danny, It's a good approach. I support it. Louis Houle ISOC Québec P.S. Sorry for that late comment. I was out in a «no Internet land»! Danny Younger a écrit :
Beau, below are the comments that I just sent through to the BGC:
When I think about restructuring the GNSO I begin by asking myself, "What broad communities should rightfully have a seat at this table"?
As I look around I see four distinct communities that have a stake in the process:
1. Community: Providers of Registration and Connectivity Services a. Registries b. Registrars c. Resellers, Hosting Companies/ISPs
2. Community: Business a. Big Business & their Intellectual Property Attorneys b. Small Business & domainers
3. Community: Law Enforcement & Security Interests
4. Community: Public Interest a. Consumer Groups b. Civil Society Advocates i. Privacy ii. Freedom of Speech, etc. c. Registrant Rights Advocates
For the sake of simplicity, fairness and to minimize council size to create a more effective body, I would recommend 3 Council seats for each broad community.
Clearly, some constituent groups already exist as recognized entities while others would need to be formed. The ICANN Board has the authority to create new constituencies on its own motion. It should do so.
regards, Danny
--- "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
I don't support this approach.
I think we should ask for a deadline extension and try to get a new draft document that speaks specifically to our concerns. Based on my experience with the ALAC review process, the ICANN is looking for suggestions on the way things ought to be. I think the reaction to this type of statement will be very negative and won't get us what we really want, or, to be frank, what I really want, which is maximum user representation in all the ICANN power centers in equal proportion to registrars and others who have nothing more than financial stakes in how ICANN operates. Personally, I think this document should specifically suggest what it is we want, rather than be a declaration of our disassociation from the process. This will just reassure everyone that the at-large can't agree on anything and get its act together (of all the regions, we are the only ones to object to this document and the process, which is not something I necessarily agree with, but is a political reality).
Some of the other statements I have seen so far in this chain, which in a way I regret I sort of started, have made some suggestions in this vein. May I suggest NA RALO take a different approach, put together some of that specific feedback on the way we think things ought to work, ask for a deadline extension, and submit that.
Also, though Alan Greenberg is nomcom appointed and not elected, he's a good guy who gives a heck of a lot of his time and is, in my opinion, taking an unfair hit.
Beau
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Thompson, Darlene Sent: Thu 4/24/2008 9:40 AM To: Gareth Shearman; Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
I, too, support this version. Nice job Danny & Evan!
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 Gareth Shearman Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:57 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
I support this version.
Gareth
On 23-Apr-08, at 8:06 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here are my contributions to the statement. I
think this time, I may
have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for
the next 24-48
hours -- please work on this in my absense. ]
Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2
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".
Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development
of
a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document
nor
afforded the opportunity to comment upon its
interim
drafts.
The document, in its final form, does not address
many
issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad
community of
registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders.
Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in
the
new GNSO formulation, despite the document's
preamble
which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN's
external
perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby
steps
towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a
focus
and catalyst for At-Large communications and
policy
development. To explicitly exclude it from a role
in
At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason.
The process used to create this document was
highly
objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not
communicated
at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or
RALOs.
It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these
changes
before the end of the comment period.
Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would
be
inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document.
It
does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs.
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
------ 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 ------
*** Scanned
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ------
Danny Younger wrote:
As I look around I see four distinct communities that have a stake in the process:
1. Community: Providers of Registration and Connectivity Services a. Registries b. Registrars c. Resellers, Hosting Companies/ISPs
2. Community: Business a. Big Business & their Intellectual Property Attorneys b. Small Business & domainers
3. Community: Law Enforcement & Security Interests
4. Community: Public Interest a. Consumer Groups b. Civil Society Advocates i. Privacy ii. Freedom of Speech, etc. c. Registrant Rights Advocates
Well, I guess then my ALS has no right to be represented; we fall into none of the above cubbyholes. Neither do most current ALSs. I can't agree at all with the above split. The entire spectrum of "public interest" -- representing the 99.99% of the world that uses the Internet -- gets one-quarter of the total voice. (And I continue to be reminded that NCUC, that shares part of that one-quarter, _defended_ the AGP!) To accept the above grouping is to accept Danny's assertion that the current At-Large process -- that tries to give a voice to public interests that would not otherwise be actively involved -- be totally discarded. I believe he was dead wrong when he first stated that view, and I'm not prepared to go along with it now because GNSO is being reconstituted. I'm not yet ready to give up on ICANN At-Large. Under the above arrangement, the general public is screwed. I can't support it. "Civil society", especially as currently constituted within ICANN, cannot be trusted to advance what I consider to be the public interest. Given a choice, I prefer the current joint statement with the ALAC sidebar. - Evan
Yes, you are probably right. We don't want to look like a bunch of whiners. As per Alan taking a bit of a hit, I am right behind Evan (in his e-mail to Cheryl) that Alan was doing his job just the way he was supposed to. He should not have to take any kind of a personal hit on this. He's a great guy and he works really hard at this stuff. 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 <mailto:dthompson@gov.nu.ca> ________________________________ From: Brendler, Beau [mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:06 AM To: Thompson, Darlene; Gareth Shearman; Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 I don't support this approach. I think we should ask for a deadline extension and try to get a new draft document that speaks specifically to our concerns. Based on my experience with the ALAC review process, the ICANN is looking for suggestions on the way things ought to be. I think the reaction to this type of statement will be very negative and won't get us what we really want, or, to be frank, what I really want, which is maximum user representation in all the ICANN power centers in equal proportion to registrars and others who have nothing more than financial stakes in how ICANN operates. Personally, I think this document should specifically suggest what it is we want, rather than be a declaration of our disassociation from the process. This will just reassure everyone that the at-large can't agree on anything and get its act together (of all the regions, we are the only ones to object to this document and the process, which is not something I necessarily agree with, but is a political reality). Some of the other statements I have seen so far in this chain, which in a way I regret I sort of started, have made some suggestions in this vein. May I suggest NA RALO take a different approach, put together some of that specific feedback on the way we think things ought to work, ask for a deadline extension, and submit that. Also, though Alan Greenberg is nomcom appointed and not elected, he's a good guy who gives a heck of a lot of his time and is, in my opinion, taking an unfair hit. Beau -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Thompson, Darlene Sent: Thu 4/24/2008 9:40 AM To: Gareth Shearman; Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 I, too, support this version. Nice job Danny & Evan! 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 Gareth Shearman Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:57 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 I support this version. Gareth On 23-Apr-08, at 8:06 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here are my contributions to the statement. I think this time, I may have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for the next 24-48 hours -- please work on this in my absense. ]
Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2
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".
Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development of a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document nor afforded the opportunity to comment upon its interim drafts.
The document, in its final form, does not address many issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad community of registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders.
Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in the new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN's external perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason.
The process used to create this document was highly objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not communicated at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or RALOs. It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these changes before the end of the comment period.
Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would be inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document. It does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs.
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
------ 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 .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ *** Scanned
me too regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 23-Apr-08, at 6:56 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
I support this version.
Gareth
On 23-Apr-08, at 8:06 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here are my contributions to the statement. I think this time, I may have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for the next 24-48 hours -- please work on this in my absense. ]
Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2
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".
Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development of a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document nor afforded the opportunity to comment upon its interim drafts.
The document, in its final form, does not address many issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad community of registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders.
Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in the new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN’s external perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason.
The process used to create this document was highly objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not communicated at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or RALOs. It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these changes before the end of the comment period.
Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would be inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document. It does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs.
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
------ 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 ------
------ 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 ------
Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in the new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN's external perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason.
I sent message to the overall At-Large list in response to a message that Evan sent including the sentence "The irony of a document backed by ALAC that explicitly recommends its own disenfranchisement is, to me, astounding." It similarly applies to "To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason." here. The substance was: The terms "At-Large" and "ALAC" are typically used interchangeably by much of ICANN. The original document from the Business Constituency did in fact reference "ALAC". I am afraid that I am the devil that caused it to change to "At-Large". My reasoning was that the ALAC is a properly constituted Board Advisory Committee within ICANN. Perhaps the lawyers and organization-gurus among us would have no problem with an Advisory body within ICANN being represented on a Supporting Organization Council. But I did. I thought that this simply confused the relationships between the various bodies. So I suggested that references to ALAC be changed to At-Large. Now since At-Large can formally speak and act solely through the RALOs and the ALAC, Presumably these bodies or their designates will play a significant role in selecting who is representing At-Large as members of an "At-Large Constituency" within the User stakeholder group (and thus affecting who sits on the GNSO council for that stakeholder group. My intention was not to disenfranchise ALAC or At-Large, but rather to reserve for them the ability to influence the GNSO through representatives, but at the same time to NOT muddy the already complex ICANN organization chart. Alan
Alan Greenberg wrote:
The substance was: The terms "At-Large" and "ALAC" are typically used interchangeably by much of ICANN. The original document from the Business Constituency did in fact reference "ALAC". I am afraid that I am the devil that caused it to change to "At-Large".
Alan, First of all, thanks for writing. I know Internet access has been difficult where you've been travelling and I appreciate both the time you've put into the entire process and your participation here.
My reasoning was that the ALAC is a properly constituted Board Advisory Committee within ICANN. Perhaps the lawyers and organization-gurus among us would have no problem with an Advisory body within ICANN being represented on a Supporting Organization Council. But I did. I am definitely not a lawyer and I hardly consider myself an organization guru. Quite the contrary, I frankly don't care how our resulting action looks like on an org chart.
My issues are simple. It's taken a long time to get ALAC to the level of maturity it now is. The group now has ICANN resource staff behind it in Frederic and Matthias, supporting Nick. After what's seemed like ageless internal navel-gazing over procedures, ALAC is finally starting to take some initiative and have an effect on ICANN policy -- specifically, the domain tasting issue. This appears to me the absolutely wrong time to extract it from contribution to the GNSO process. I understand that there may be a perceived conflict, that At-Large would be seen to be getting both an advisory role throughout ICANN plus an explicit vote/liaison at GNSO. I must say that this does not bother me -- At-Large has been getting the shaft from the ICANN policy process for a long time, and even this perceived conflict (ALAC still doesn't have a vote on the Board) does not go nearly as far IMO as is necessary to give the public voice its rightful prominence within ICANN. I don't like the idea of any attempt to create a parallel ALAC just in order to determine what At-Large reps participate in the GNSO.
I thought that this simply confused the relationships between the various bodies. Not to me, nor, from what I can tell to most others. The confusion is IMO a fabrication of those who want to continue to minimize the role of At-Large and its legitimate representative body, ALAC.
ALAC appoints a liaison to the Board and to other committees. It can also appoints liaisons to the GNSO (and I would hope eventually the CCNSO and any other NSOs as they are created). No confusion. And so long as ALAC doesn't have a vote on the board, not even a conflict. In any case, I had REALLY hoped that something this significant would have come back to the community for debate -- part of the reason for the response you saw was because of the apparently arbitrary resolution of this issue, without benefit of those -- the RALOs and ALSs -- directly affected by it.
So I suggested that references to ALAC be changed to At-Large. Now since At-Large can formally speak and act solely through the RALOs and the ALAC, presumably these bodies or their designates will play a significant role in selecting who is representing At-Large as members of an "At-Large Constituency" within the User stakeholder group You mean, like, ALAC selecting At-Large members to sit on GNSO? After all, what is ALAC _except_ for the voice of the RALOs? (well, it is also the NomComm appointees -- I really like the GNSO intended approach of shifting NomComm appointees from voting members to an advisory capacity. I hope this approach is suggested by the ALAC review).
In any case, whether they're called ALAC reps or whether ALAC selects "At-Large reps" who are not necessarily ALAC committee members, this is splitting hairs. What matters to me is that there must be no allowance for or suggestion of a parallel process to be created, that bypasses the ALAC, to determine the At-Large representation on the GNSO. Since not every ALS -- or even every RALO -- can have a GNSO seat, the people who are selected should be accountable to ALAC and subject to direction and/or recall. In other words, regardless of the specific process of appointments, ALAC will have some role. And I prefer to make that explicit and transparent, rather than to avoid mention now and have someone "discover" ALAC's involvement later. Of course, one reasonable option is to allocate five at-large seats, one for each RALO which could appoint them directly. This avoids ALAC, but leaves only one seat for NCUC. Personally, I could live with that quite happily... (Of course, I believe that At-Large should eventually comprise more than 50% of GNSO, but that's not going to happen in this go-round.) - Evan
At 25/04/2008 10:43 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
The substance was: The terms "At-Large" and "ALAC" are typically used interchangeably by much of ICANN. The original document from the Business Constituency did in fact reference "ALAC". I am afraid that I am the devil that caused it to change to "At-Large".
Alan,
First of all, thanks for writing. I know Internet access has been difficult where you've been travelling and I appreciate both the time you've put into the entire process and your participation here.
Thanks.
My reasoning was that the ALAC is a properly constituted Board Advisory Committee within ICANN. Perhaps the lawyers and organization-gurus among us would have no problem with an Advisory body within ICANN being represented on a Supporting Organization Council. But I did. I am definitely not a lawyer and I hardly consider myself an organization guru. Quite the contrary, I frankly don't care how our resulting action looks like on an org chart.
My issues are simple. It's taken a long time to get ALAC to the level of maturity it now is. The group now has ICANN resource staff behind it in Frederic and Matthias, supporting Nick. After what's seemed like ageless internal navel-gazing over procedures, ALAC is finally starting to take some initiative and have an effect on ICANN policy -- specifically, the domain tasting issue.
This appears to me the absolutely wrong time to extract it from contribution to the GNSO process. I understand that there may be a perceived conflict, that At-Large would be seen to be getting both an advisory role throughout ICANN plus an explicit vote/liaison at GNSO. I must say that this does not bother me -- At-Large has been getting the shaft from the ICANN policy process for a long time, and even this perceived conflict (ALAC still doesn't have a vote on the Board) does not go nearly as far IMO as is necessary to give the public voice its rightful prominence within ICANN.
I don't like the idea of any attempt to create a parallel ALAC just in order to determine what At-Large reps participate in the GNSO.
That was not what I was suggesting at all. In fact, just the opposite. I envisaged the ALAC coming up with some methodology for identifying the members of the new At-Large Constituency within the new Non-commercial stakeholders group. The one that comes to mind is one person per ALS. Or even directly selected by the ALAC. But regardless, they are then representing "At-Large". Do remember that we are not talking about selecting a person to sit on the GNSO council. We are talking about how one populates a new User Constituency with the larger NonCom Stakeholders Group. That Constituency, by whatever arcane rules it defines, then select N members to sit on the GNSO Council.
I thought that this simply confused the relationships between the various bodies. Not to me, nor, from what I can tell to most others. The confusion is IMO a fabrication of those who want to continue to minimize the role of At-Large and its legitimate representative body, ALAC.
Then we don't agree on that. I have had dealings with many people within ICANN that are delighted to see us finally doing SOMETHING, and they all generally used the terms At-Large and ALAC interchangeably. Most are not fully cognizant of RALOs or ALSs.
ALAC appoints a liaison to the Board and to other committees.
It can also appoints liaisons to the GNSO (and I would hope eventually the CCNSO and any other NSOs as they are created).
No confusion. And so long as ALAC doesn't have a vote on the board, not even a conflict. In any case, I had REALLY hoped that something this significant would have come back to the community for debate -- part of the reason for the response you saw was because of the apparently arbitrary resolution of this issue, without benefit of those -- the RALOs and ALSs -- directly affected by it.
That I cannot comment on. My reference to suggesting that At-Large be used instead of ALAC happened WAY before the ALAC was involved in this joint statement. I did see (and comment on) a more recent version of the statement just before I left, but it was not my place to re-distribute it.
So I suggested that references to ALAC be changed to At-Large. Now since At-Large can formally speak and act solely through the RALOs and the ALAC, presumably these bodies or their designates will play a significant role in selecting who is representing At-Large as members of an "At-Large Constituency" within the User stakeholder group You mean, like, ALAC selecting At-Large members to sit on GNSO? After all, what is ALAC _except_ for the voice of the RALOs? (well, it is also the NomComm appointees -- I really like the GNSO intended approach of shifting NomComm appointees from voting members to an advisory capacity. I hope this approach is suggested by the ALAC review).
We differ on this (and it has nothing to do with mu being a NomCom ALAC member. I strongly feel that they ability to talk and vote without being beholden to any specific group is valuable (and I am talking mainly from my experience on the GNSO) *IF* good people are appointed.
In any case, whether they're called ALAC reps or whether ALAC selects "At-Large reps" who are not necessarily ALAC committee members, this is splitting hairs. What matters to me is that there must be no allowance for or suggestion of a parallel process to be created, that bypasses the ALAC, to determine the At-Large representation on the GNSO. Since not every ALS -- or even every RALO -- can have a GNSO seat, the people who are selected should be accountable to ALAC and subject to direction and/or recall.
According to the proposal that is on the table, there will be no At-large representation on the GNSO. Just as there will be no representation for the IPC or BC or ISPC (unless the stakeholder groups as-yet-unwritten rules say that there must be. There will be representation of the NomCom Stakeholders group, one or more of those Councillors may or may not be from the At-Large constituency. Just as the new Commercial Stakeholders Group may or may not have a Councillor from (for example) the Intellectual Property Constituency. It will depend on, among other things, how many councillors each stakeholders group gets, and how many constituencies they have within the group.
In other words, regardless of the specific process of appointments, ALAC will have some role. And I prefer to make that explicit and transparent, rather than to avoid mention now and have someone "discover" ALAC's involvement later.
Of course, one reasonable option is to allocate five at-large seats, one for each RALO which could appoint them directly. This avoids ALAC, but leaves only one seat for NCUC. Personally, I could live with that quite happily...
And you have forgotten the Consumer Protection Constituency and the BetterBusinessBureau Constituency and the Association of Local Computer Clubs Constituency and .... Alan
(Of course, I believe that At-Large should eventually comprise more than 50% of GNSO, but that's not going to happen in this go-round.)
- Evan
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Do remember that we are not talking about selecting a person to sit on the GNSO council. We are talking about how one populates a new User Constituency with the larger NonCom Stakeholders Group. That Constituency, by whatever arcane rules it defines, then select N members to sit on the GNSO Council.
Then we're back to the re-invention of ALAC that I'm trying to prevent. Maybe our positions are not as easy to reconcile as I thought. ALAC *is* the representative body of the end-user constituency.
I did see (and comment on) a more recent version of the statement just before I left, but it was not my place to re-distribute it.
Well, then whose place was it? The witholding of early drafts from our ability to comment, is a significant factor in the backlash that led to the original NARALO dissociation statement.
I strongly feel that they ability to talk and vote without being beholden to any specific group is valuable (and I am talking mainly from my experience on the GNSO) *IF* good people are appointed.
Talk, yes. Vote, no. I see no value in voting without responsibility to the community that ALAC supposedly serves.
And you have forgotten the Consumer Protection Constituency and the BetterBusinessBureau Constituency and the Association of Local Computer Clubs Constituency and ....
Those are all potential ALSs, which means they already have a place in At-Large without needing to create more bureaucracy. - Evan
At 25/04/2008 11:44 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
Do remember that we are not talking about selecting a person to sit on the GNSO council. We are talking about how one populates a new User Constituency with the larger NonCom Stakeholders Group. That Constituency, by whatever arcane rules it defines, then select N members to sit on the GNSO Council.
Then we're back to the re-invention of ALAC that I'm trying to prevent. Maybe our positions are not as easy to reconcile as I thought.
ALAC *is* the representative body of the end-user constituency.
That was not my "position". I am only stating what the Board Governance Committee, in their wisdom, approved. It was not a solution that I supported. Alan
I have to strongly agree with Evan on this one. Alan was put into that WG as the NA rep. However, since he is nom com, he felt no need to seek our input into the process, leaving the NARALO twisting in the wind. (This was all in Alan's right as a nom com.) The rest all thought that he was liaising with us but that was not the case - leading to the blow-up that occurred. In any future such cases, NARALO needs to have an elected ALAC member taking part and representing our region. I don't want to ever see our region completely neglected in this manner again. If the nom com appointees cannot step outside of the box from time to time in order to keep information flowing to their regions, then they should be in an advisory position only and not voting and we need to ensure that we have mechanisms in place to keep the flow of information going both ways. Again, please do not see this as a personal attack. It is structure that I am complaining about. 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: Friday, April 25, 2008 11:44 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 Alan Greenberg wrote:
Do remember that we are not talking about selecting a person to sit on the GNSO council. We are talking about how one populates a new User Constituency with the larger NonCom Stakeholders Group. That Constituency, by whatever arcane rules it defines, then select N members to sit on the GNSO Council.
Then we're back to the re-invention of ALAC that I'm trying to prevent. Maybe our positions are not as easy to reconcile as I thought. ALAC *is* the representative body of the end-user constituency.
I did see (and comment on) a more recent version of the statement just before I left, but it was not my place to re-distribute it.
Well, then whose place was it? The witholding of early drafts from our ability to comment, is a significant factor in the backlash that led to the original NARALO dissociation statement.
I strongly feel that they ability to talk and vote without being beholden to any specific group is valuable (and I am talking mainly from my experience on the GNSO) *IF* good people are appointed.
Talk, yes. Vote, no. I see no value in voting without responsibility to the community that ALAC supposedly serves.
And you have forgotten the Consumer Protection Constituency and the BetterBusinessBureau Constituency and the Association of Local Computer Clubs Constituency and ....
Those are all potential ALSs, which means they already have a place in At-Large without needing to create more bureaucracy. - 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 ------
Alan, The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO. Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
I'll take that one Alan... at the v3 - v4 stage of document review I flagged that some members of the ALAC will have problems with this particular POV but it made the final cut... So *No One* from the ALAC team put that forward... CLO -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg; NA Discuss Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 Alan, The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO. Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition? ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
So why did you agree to that language instead of standing up for your beliefs and demanding that it be removed? Is this how you negotiate on behalf of the At-Large? What concessions did you obtain? There is no language regarding the need for a registrants constituency, and language supporting the need for consumer group representation was removed. What "pork" did you manage to bring back to your constituency? I see none whatsoever. If anything, you have acted to increase the relative strength of the Cross-constituency that has been opposed to the vast bulk of the positions held by the at-large. Next time that you decide to put out a statement on behalf of the ALAC at least have the decency to put the statement up for a vote. This high-handed abuse of process is not acceptable and goes well beyond a Chair's prerogatives. --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
I'll take that one Alan... at the v3 - v4 stage of document review I flagged that some members of the ALAC will have problems with this particular POV but it made the final cut...
So *No One* from the ALAC team put that forward...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg; NA Discuss Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Alan,
The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO. Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition?
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Danny, we seem to have got personal for some reason... but I will reply by stating that... I note and personally regret your extreme disappointment and frustrations with the outcome of, and included language in, the *Joint* Statement... But like anyone who puts themselves up for any publically scrutinized Leadership Position I know all too well that everything I do and say is up for review and comment 'so be it'... Further in my quite extensive experience in leadership positions, I also know that you rarely make everyone happy at any one time... SO... I will also publically note (but not react directly to) your criticism and dissatisfaction with my various personal and professional qualities including (but I assume not limited to) those specifically relating to:- negotiation skills, change management capabilities, language ineptitude, an inability to make my case / beliefs understood or agreed to, and the general performance of my duties as Chair of ALAC including in your view an unacceptable abuse of power... Have I missed any? Kindest regards, CLO -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:56 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 So why did you agree to that language instead of standing up for your beliefs and demanding that it be removed? Is this how you negotiate on behalf of the At-Large? What concessions did you obtain? There is no language regarding the need for a registrants constituency, and language supporting the need for consumer group representation was removed. What "pork" did you manage to bring back to your constituency? I see none whatsoever. If anything, you have acted to increase the relative strength of the Cross-constituency that has been opposed to the vast bulk of the positions held by the at-large. Next time that you decide to put out a statement on behalf of the ALAC at least have the decency to put the statement up for a vote. This high-handed abuse of process is not acceptable and goes well beyond a Chair's prerogatives. --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
I'll take that one Alan... at the v3 - v4 stage of document review I flagged that some members of the ALAC will have problems with this particular POV but it made the final cut...
So *No One* from the ALAC team put that forward...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg; NA Discuss Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Alan,
The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO. Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition?
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Cheryl, I would be happy to address my remarks to the team members that agreed to the language in the Joint Statement. Unfortunately, I don't know which individuals actually participated or which folk contributed what remarks to the discussions. No attempt was made to work transparently, no written records are available to review, and the team defaulted in its obligation to publish the document for community review by 15 April as personally promised by the ALAC Chair at the monthly ALAC teleconference. Finally, some some reason the "team" had a comfort level with promulgating a Statement on behalf of the ALAC that hadn't been voted upon by the ALAC itself. I find this to be a troubling development not in keeping with norms that I associate with Civil Society behavior. Yes, I consider it to be an abuse. regards, Danny --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
Danny, we seem to have got personal for some reason... but I will reply by stating that...
I note and personally regret your extreme disappointment and frustrations with the outcome of, and included language in, the *Joint* Statement...
But like anyone who puts themselves up for any publically scrutinized Leadership Position I know all too well that everything I do and say is up for review and comment 'so be it'... Further in my quite extensive experience in leadership positions, I also know that you rarely make everyone happy at any one time...
SO... I will also publically note (but not react directly to) your criticism and dissatisfaction with my various personal and professional qualities including (but I assume not limited to) those specifically relating to:- negotiation skills, change management capabilities, language ineptitude, an inability to make my case / beliefs understood or agreed to, and the general performance of my duties as Chair of ALAC including in your view an unacceptable abuse of power... Have I missed any?
Kindest regards,
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:56 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
So why did you agree to that language instead of standing up for your beliefs and demanding that it be removed? Is this how you negotiate on behalf of the At-Large? What concessions did you obtain?
There is no language regarding the need for a registrants constituency, and language supporting the need for consumer group representation was removed. What "pork" did you manage to bring back to your constituency? I see none whatsoever.
If anything, you have acted to increase the relative strength of the Cross-constituency that has been opposed to the vast bulk of the positions held by the at-large.
Next time that you decide to put out a statement on behalf of the ALAC at least have the decency to put the statement up for a vote. This high-handed abuse of process is not acceptable and goes well beyond a Chair's prerogatives.
--- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
I'll take that one Alan... at the v3 - v4 stage of document review I flagged that some members of the ALAC will have problems with this particular POV but it made the final cut...
So *No One* from the ALAC team put that forward...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg; NA Discuss Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Alan,
The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO. Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition?
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Ahhh Danny, thanks for this reply... it gives me an easy 'reply to' method of addressing an oversight I'd just realized... Sorry it is 0415 here and I have also been on other ALAC related chats and communications channels on a number of issues... ( we have a lot of SC and WG activities coming together at the moment) while I've been working on replies and interjections for this Joint Statement and the NARALO topic... I'd just come back to the lappy as I'd realized I'd neglected to state in my earlier reply that with regards to a 'Vote by the ALAC' on the matter of the Joint Statement... I had put that request in as a matter of normal course for Staff to organize earlier today so that is being addressed -> as it should be, but as yet I do not know when the call to vote will go out... CLO -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:45 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'NA Discuss' Cc: 'Nick Ashton-Hart' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 Cheryl, I would be happy to address my remarks to the team members that agreed to the language in the Joint Statement. Unfortunately, I don't know which individuals actually participated or which folk contributed what remarks to the discussions. No attempt was made to work transparently, no written records are available to review, and the team defaulted in its obligation to publish the document for community review by 15 April as personally promised by the ALAC Chair at the monthly ALAC teleconference. Finally, some some reason the "team" had a comfort level with promulgating a Statement on behalf of the ALAC that hadn't been voted upon by the ALAC itself. I find this to be a troubling development not in keeping with norms that I associate with Civil Society behavior. Yes, I consider it to be an abuse. regards, Danny --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
Danny, we seem to have got personal for some reason... but I will reply by stating that...
I note and personally regret your extreme disappointment and frustrations with the outcome of, and included language in, the *Joint* Statement...
But like anyone who puts themselves up for any publically scrutinized Leadership Position I know all too well that everything I do and say is up for review and comment 'so be it'... Further in my quite extensive experience in leadership positions, I also know that you rarely make everyone happy at any one time...
SO... I will also publically note (but not react directly to) your criticism and dissatisfaction with my various personal and professional qualities including (but I assume not limited to) those specifically relating to:- negotiation skills, change management capabilities, language ineptitude, an inability to make my case / beliefs understood or agreed to, and the general performance of my duties as Chair of ALAC including in your view an unacceptable abuse of power... Have I missed any?
Kindest regards,
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:56 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
So why did you agree to that language instead of standing up for your beliefs and demanding that it be removed? Is this how you negotiate on behalf of the At-Large? What concessions did you obtain?
There is no language regarding the need for a registrants constituency, and language supporting the need for consumer group representation was removed. What "pork" did you manage to bring back to your constituency? I see none whatsoever.
If anything, you have acted to increase the relative strength of the Cross-constituency that has been opposed to the vast bulk of the positions held by the at-large.
Next time that you decide to put out a statement on behalf of the ALAC at least have the decency to put the statement up for a vote. This high-handed abuse of process is not acceptable and goes well beyond a Chair's prerogatives.
--- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
I'll take that one Alan... at the v3 - v4 stage of document review I flagged that some members of the ALAC will have problems with this particular POV but it made the final cut...
So *No One* from the ALAC team put that forward...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg; NA Discuss Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Alan,
The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO. Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition?
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Cheryl, Glad that I could be of help... but I certainly hope that voting on Statements after they have already been issued will not become the way that ALAC handles matters going forward. In my part of the world organizations vote on Statements prior to their release :) Have a nice weekend, Danny --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
Ahhh Danny, thanks for this reply... it gives me an easy 'reply to' method of addressing an oversight I'd just realized... Sorry it is 0415 here and I have also been on other ALAC related chats and communications channels on a number of issues... ( we have a lot of SC and WG activities coming together at the moment) while I've been working on replies and interjections for this Joint Statement and the NARALO topic...
I'd just come back to the lappy as I'd realized I'd neglected to state in my earlier reply that with regards to a 'Vote by the ALAC' on the matter of the Joint Statement... I had put that request in as a matter of normal course for Staff to organize earlier today so that is being addressed -> as it should be, but as yet I do not know when the call to vote will go out...
CLO -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:45 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'NA Discuss' Cc: 'Nick Ashton-Hart' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Cheryl,
I would be happy to address my remarks to the team members that agreed to the language in the Joint Statement. Unfortunately, I don't know which individuals actually participated or which folk contributed what remarks to the discussions.
No attempt was made to work transparently, no written records are available to review, and the team defaulted in its obligation to publish the document for community review by 15 April as personally promised by the ALAC Chair at the monthly ALAC teleconference.
Finally, some some reason the "team" had a comfort level with promulgating a Statement on behalf of the ALAC that hadn't been voted upon by the ALAC itself.
I find this to be a troubling development not in keeping with norms that I associate with Civil Society behavior. Yes, I consider it to be an abuse.
regards, Danny
--- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
Danny, we seem to have got personal for some reason... but I will reply by stating that...
I note and personally regret your extreme disappointment and frustrations with the outcome of, and included language in, the *Joint* Statement...
But like anyone who puts themselves up for any publically scrutinized Leadership Position I know all too well that everything I do and say is up for review and comment 'so be it'... Further in my quite extensive experience in leadership positions, I also know that you rarely make everyone happy at any one time...
SO... I will also publically note (but not react directly to) your criticism and dissatisfaction with my various personal and professional qualities including (but I assume not limited to) those specifically relating to:- negotiation skills, change management capabilities, language ineptitude, an inability to make my case / beliefs understood or agreed to, and the general performance of my duties as Chair of ALAC including in your view an unacceptable abuse of power... Have I missed any?
Kindest regards,
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:56 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
So why did you agree to that language instead of standing up for your beliefs and demanding that it be removed? Is this how you negotiate on behalf of the At-Large? What concessions did you obtain?
There is no language regarding the need for a registrants constituency, and language supporting the need for consumer group representation was removed. What "pork" did you manage to bring back to your constituency? I see none whatsoever.
If anything, you have acted to increase the relative strength of the Cross-constituency that has been opposed to the vast bulk of the positions held by the at-large.
Next time that you decide to put out a statement on behalf of the ALAC at least have the decency to put the statement up for a vote. This high-handed abuse of process is not acceptable and goes well beyond a Chair's prerogatives.
--- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
I'll take that one Alan... at the v3 - v4 stage of document review I flagged that some members of the ALAC will have problems with this particular POV but it made the final cut...
So *No One* from the ALAC team put that forward...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg; NA Discuss Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Alan,
The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO.
Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition?
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Danny, As NARALO Secretariat (and since Evan is in bed attempting to recover from surgery) I would like to advise you that this type of personal attack is completely unwarranted. We are all volunteers here and are doing our best. Could things have been done better. Maybe. But we still have time to change things without getting personal. 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 Danny Younger Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:56 PM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 So why did you agree to that language instead of standing up for your beliefs and demanding that it be removed? Is this how you negotiate on behalf of the At-Large? What concessions did you obtain? There is no language regarding the need for a registrants constituency, and language supporting the need for consumer group representation was removed. What "pork" did you manage to bring back to your constituency? I see none whatsoever. If anything, you have acted to increase the relative strength of the Cross-constituency that has been opposed to the vast bulk of the positions held by the at-large. Next time that you decide to put out a statement on behalf of the ALAC at least have the decency to put the statement up for a vote. This high-handed abuse of process is not acceptable and goes well beyond a Chair's prerogatives. --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
I'll take that one Alan... at the v3 - v4 stage of document review I flagged that some members of the ALAC will have problems with this particular POV but it made the final cut...
So *No One* from the ALAC team put that forward...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg; NA Discuss Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Alan,
The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO. Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition?
________________________________________________________________________ ____
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________ ____________ 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 .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I saw an earlier draft and objected strongly. I wasn't involved prior to that, but my guess is some of the GNSO folks raised it. In the MUCH earlier notes I saw, it was left up to the NomCom review process to decide how that one came out. ALan At 25/04/2008 12:27 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO. Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition?
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Brendler, Beau -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Gareth Shearman -
Louis Houle -
Robert Guerra -
Thompson, Darlene