Do we wish to forward a comment on this as a group? Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 2:40 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] NomCom review http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jul07.htm The independent reviewer that is reviewing ICANN's NomCom is asking for "public input from anyone who has information or observations to contribute concerning any aspect of the role, structure, or operation of the NomCom". Comments must be submitted no later than 17 September 2007. -- 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Darlene, I would put through the following statement: The "independent review" of the Nominating Committee has seen processes invoked that raise probity concerns, namely (1) "guidance" being provided at the behest of the ICANN Board Governance Committee by three active ICANN Board members and three former ICANN Board members: Alejandro Pisanty, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Njeri Rionge, Mouhamet Diop, Jonathan Cohen and Steve Goldstein; and (2) the selection of a consulting group to perform the review whose roster of principals includes a former ICANN Board member, Lyman Chapin, who was directly responsible for the creation of the Nominating Committee. In the aggregate, the direct involvement of so many current and former ICANN directors in the review process thoroughly endangers the concept of detached independent assessment as a corporate accountability mechanism. regards, Danny --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
Do we wish to forward a comment on this as a group?
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 2:40 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] NomCom review
http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jul07.htm
The independent reviewer that is reviewing ICANN's NomCom is asking for "public input from anyone who has information or observations to contribute concerning any aspect of the role, structure, or operation of
the NomCom". Comments must be submitted no later than 17 September 2007. -- 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
Questions and comments related to Nomcom were raised during the NA RALO discussions @ San Juan. Would be good to collect the comments and send them in. I remember Evan having the most # of comments on this issue. correct? regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 23-Jul-07, at 9:18 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Do we wish to forward a comment on this as a group?
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 2:40 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] NomCom review
http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jul07.htm
The independent reviewer that is reviewing ICANN's NomCom is asking for "public input from anyone who has information or observations to contribute concerning any aspect of the role, structure, or operation of
the NomCom". Comments must be submitted no later than 17 September 2007. -- 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Robert Guerra wrote:
Questions and comments related to Nomcom were raised during the NA RALO discussions @ San Juan. Would be good to collect the comments and send them in.
I remember Evan having the most # of comments on this issue. correct?
From the high-level view, I'm very uncomfortable with the move of the Board from being chosen by direct elections to one made from the selections of a NomComm that is multiple levels removed from the public. There's also some feedback loop logic inherent in a process in which ALAC picks members of NonComm who then pick members of ALAC.
If direct Board elections aren't in the cards soon then the NomComm ought to be substantially -- if not overwhelmingly -- populated by people who are there to protect the public interest and the focus on ICANN's mandate (ie, not general Internet governance and not trademark treaties). My initial preference would be that the NomComm would be populated by one appointment from each NSO and one from each At-Large Region as well as the previous Chair of the Board -- but I can be easily swayed to other models that preserve the intent. I have other opinions related to the relationship between the ALAC and the NomComm, but that may be more appropriate for the ALAC review. My view here is that there should be NO NomComm-selected people on ALAC. If there is a pressing need for a third person from each region not picked by RALOs, then that spot should be elected by At-Large individuals not affiliated to a RALO in each region. (IMO this may help address the "enfranchisement of the unaffiliated", if only partially. It's still a far cry from direct Board elections.) Having said all this. I promised I would limit my participation on issues that weren't specifically project or policy related. Neither the composition of NomComm nor of ALAC will be of any relevance (from our POV) if at-large doesn't contribute to policy. I've now stated my piece and will leave the rest to others, unless I'm specifically dragged in (as happened here ;-) ). - Evan
In my opinion, the NomCom should be made up by and appointed by the constituency organizations. Randy Glass A@L On 7/23/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Robert Guerra wrote:
Questions and comments related to Nomcom were raised during the NA RALO discussions @ San Juan. Would be good to collect the comments and send them in.
I remember Evan having the most # of comments on this issue. correct?
From the high-level view, I'm very uncomfortable with the move of the Board from being chosen by direct elections to one made from the selections of a NomComm that is multiple levels removed from the public. There's also some feedback loop logic inherent in a process in which ALAC picks members of NonComm who then pick members of ALAC.
If direct Board elections aren't in the cards soon then the NomComm ought to be substantially -- if not overwhelmingly -- populated by people who are there to protect the public interest and the focus on ICANN's mandate (ie, not general Internet governance and not trademark treaties). My initial preference would be that the NomComm would be populated by one appointment from each NSO and one from each At-Large Region as well as the previous Chair of the Board -- but I can be easily swayed to other models that preserve the intent.
I have other opinions related to the relationship between the ALAC and the NomComm, but that may be more appropriate for the ALAC review. My view here is that there should be NO NomComm-selected people on ALAC. If there is a pressing need for a third person from each region not picked by RALOs, then that spot should be elected by At-Large individuals not affiliated to a RALO in each region. (IMO this may help address the "enfranchisement of the unaffiliated", if only partially. It's still a far cry from direct Board elections.)
Having said all this. I promised I would limit my participation on issues that weren't specifically project or policy related. Neither the composition of NomComm nor of ALAC will be of any relevance (from our POV) if at-large doesn't contribute to policy. I've now stated my piece and will leave the rest to others, unless I'm specifically dragged in (as happened here ;-) ).
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
Randy, Thanks for your opinion, but could you perhaps justify your view? Constituency organizations are nothing more than special-interest communities that already elect members to the Board by way of the Supporting Organizations. Why should the ICANN Board be populated only by the world of special interests while the public interest community gets no representation whatsoever? --- "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> wrote:
In my opinion, the NomCom should be made up by and appointed by the constituency organizations.
Randy Glass A@L
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
Sure, by 'constituency organizations,' I mean the Nomcom should be appointed by and made up of individuals found somewhere within the NARALO, ALAC, SSAC, RSSAC, TLG, ASO, GNSO, CCNSO, etc. The reason is that I feel we need people who are familiar with ICANN and what it does, and what it should be doing. People with intimate knowledge. Now, candidates for the positions should be drawn from a wide pool both inside and outside ICANN. My reasoning is reverberated by Robert's email on this subject. The ALAC representatives should be doing just that, looking at their RALOs and seeking input toward their votes. But how?? I guess we'll get to that. Therefore, if we make this process to work as hoped... The ALSs will continue to look out for the public interest, feeding that viewpoint through to ALAC, which optimally will continue their fiduciary responsibility toward their matters. Randy Glass A@L On 7/26/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy,
Thanks for your opinion, but could you perhaps justify your view?
Constituency organizations are nothing more than special-interest communities that already elect members to the Board by way of the Supporting Organizations. Why should the ICANN Board be populated only by the world of special interests while the public interest community gets no representation whatsoever?
--- "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> wrote:
In my opinion, the NomCom should be made up by and appointed by the constituency organizations.
Randy Glass A@L
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
Randy, You are an individual functioning as an ISP in Hawaii. You are also a domain name reseller for GoDaddy and Register.com, and you also manage a portfolio of over 900 monetized parking pages. So, I understand where you are coming from... just like MarkMonitor that offers domain services for a niche community (the intellectual property folk), you are offering domain services that are marketed for the "domainers and Internet users in America". The "at-large" has become your marketing vehicle, and apparently the most important thing that you took out of the San Juan experience was your complimentary membership with the .mobi folks. I can accept all that as the basis for a view that promotes special-interest segments ahead of the unrepresented public interest segment. What I can't accept is the notion that your organization properly belongs in the NARALO as an at-large organization. From what I have seen over the course of the last few years, you have no active membership. You have no articles posted by anyone other than yourself. You have no publicly archived discussion forums. You have no posted organizational minutes. Summing it up, you're an individual with a financial interest in domain name activities that put up a website hoping to become an organization... ...I can understand that course of action; there are some long-time participants in the GNSO GA that have acted in similar fashion. Frankly, there also have been many ALSs that are in the process for other than purely honorable reasons -- just look at all those European ALSs that signed up primarily to get their hands on travel funding for the earlier Athens IGF session; since they signed up they've contributed almost nothing to the At-Large process... ...but at least you contribute. I'm prepared to accept your contributions as an individual since the NARALO allows for individuals, but I'm having a hard time accepting the notion that AmericaAtLarge speaks for the broader at-large community. regards, Danny --- "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure,
by 'constituency organizations,' I mean the Nomcom should be appointed by and made up of individuals found somewhere within the NARALO, ALAC, SSAC, RSSAC, TLG, ASO, GNSO, CCNSO, etc.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
Danny: I think your comments are after the fact. Randy's organization went through the at-large application process , which includes a due diligence review and discussion and approval by the at-large committee. it was approved, and as such is a certified at-large structure. if you want to comment on the appropriateness or not of an accredited ALS, then please - don't just pick on one, but review and comment the entire list of other certified structures. The list of ALS applications is available here - http:// alac.icann.org/applications/ Personally, Randy's views and those of his organization have been, and no doubt will continue to be useful and constructive. Yes it's from a slightly different perspective, but welcome none the less. I look forward to their ongoing participation in the na-ralo and larger at-large community. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 26-Jul-07, at 1:26 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Randy,
You are an individual functioning as an ISP in Hawaii. You are also a domain name reseller for GoDaddy and Register.com, and you also manage a portfolio of over 900 monetized parking pages.
So, I understand where you are coming from... just like MarkMonitor that offers domain services for a niche community (the intellectual property folk), you are offering domain services that are marketed for the "domainers and Internet users in America".
The "at-large" has become your marketing vehicle, and apparently the most important thing that you took out of the San Juan experience was your complimentary membership with the .mobi folks.
I can accept all that as the basis for a view that promotes special-interest segments ahead of the unrepresented public interest segment.
What I can't accept is the notion that your organization properly belongs in the NARALO as an at-large organization. From what I have seen over the course of the last few years, you have no active membership. You have no articles posted by anyone other than yourself. You have no publicly archived discussion forums. You have no posted organizational minutes.
Summing it up, you're an individual with a financial interest in domain name activities that put up a website hoping to become an organization...
...I can understand that course of action; there are some long-time participants in the GNSO GA that have acted in similar fashion.
Frankly, there also have been many ALSs that are in the process for other than purely honorable reasons -- just look at all those European ALSs that signed up primarily to get their hands on travel funding for the earlier Athens IGF session; since they signed up they've contributed almost nothing to the At-Large process...
...but at least you contribute. I'm prepared to accept your contributions as an individual since the NARALO allows for individuals, but I'm having a hard time accepting the notion that AmericaAtLarge speaks for the broader at-large community.
regards, Danny
--- "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure,
by 'constituency organizations,' I mean the Nomcom should be appointed by and made up of individuals found somewhere within the NARALO, ALAC, SSAC, RSSAC, TLG, ASO, GNSO, CCNSO, etc.
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Hello Robert, I look forward to your posting of the de-certification procedures. At issue, for me, is whether we are receiving the benefit of organizational responses, or merely the personal viewpoints of those that claim to represent an organization. ...and I'll be happy to address the issue of other organizations. The theory was that DNS/ICANN-related information would be conveyed to the ALSs by way of their representatives who would then aggregate the responses and pass the input back through to the RALO. I don't think I have ever seen any such materials passed onto the web405 discussion list (as but one example), and having reviewed most all of the websites and discuss lists of the other North American ALSs, I can confidently report that most all of them are totally bereft of such (with a few notable exceptions). When the ALAC Review commences in earnest, I'm sure that we'll see this all properly documented. --- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
I think your comments are after the fact. Randy's organization went through the at-large application process , which includes a due diligence review and discussion and approval by the at-large committee. it was approved, and as such is a certified at-large structure.
if you want to comment on the appropriateness or not of an accredited ALS, then please - don't just pick on one, but review and comment the entire list of other certified structures.
The list of ALS applications is available here - http:// alac.icann.org/applications/
Personally, Randy's views and those of his organization have been, and no doubt will continue to be useful and constructive. Yes it's from a slightly different perspective, but welcome none the less.
I look forward to their ongoing participation in the na-ralo and larger at-large community.
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
On 26-Jul-07, at 1:26 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Randy,
You are an individual functioning as an ISP in Hawaii. You are also a domain name reseller for GoDaddy and Register.com, and you also manage a portfolio of over 900 monetized parking pages.
So, I understand where you are coming from... just like MarkMonitor that offers domain services for a niche community (the intellectual property folk), you are offering domain services that are marketed for the "domainers and Internet users in America".
The "at-large" has become your marketing vehicle, and apparently the most important thing that you took out of the San Juan experience was your complimentary membership with the .mobi folks.
I can accept all that as the basis for a view that promotes special-interest segments ahead of the unrepresented public interest segment.
What I can't accept is the notion that your organization properly belongs in the NARALO as an at-large organization. From what I have seen over the course of the last few years, you have no active membership. You have no articles posted by anyone other than yourself. You have no publicly archived discussion forums. You have no posted organizational minutes.
Summing it up, you're an individual with a financial interest in domain name activities that put up a website hoping to become an organization...
...I can understand that course of action; there are some long-time participants in the GNSO GA that have acted in similar fashion.
Frankly, there also have been many ALSs that are in the process for other than purely honorable reasons -- just look at all those European ALSs that signed up primarily to get their hands on travel funding for the earlier Athens IGF session; since they signed up they've contributed almost nothing to the At-Large process...
...but at least you contribute. I'm prepared to accept your contributions as an individual since the NARALO allows for individuals, but I'm having a hard time accepting the notion that AmericaAtLarge speaks for the broader at-large community.
regards, Danny
--- "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure,
by 'constituency organizations,' I mean the Nomcom should be appointed by and made up of individuals found somewhere within the NARALO, ALAC, SSAC, RSSAC, TLG, ASO, GNSO, CCNSO, etc.
______________________________________________________________________
______________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-
lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
Hi Danny Thanks for the reminder on de-certification. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 14:10 To: Robert Guerra; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: [At-Large] NomCom review Hello Robert, I look forward to your posting of the de-certification procedures. At issue, for me, is whether we are receiving the benefit of organizational responses, or merely the personal viewpoints of those that claim to represent an organization. ...and I'll be happy to address the issue of other organizations. The theory was that DNS/ICANN-related information would be conveyed to the ALSs by way of their representatives who would then aggregate the responses and pass the input back through to the RALO. I don't think I have ever seen any such materials passed onto the web405 discussion list (as but one example), and having reviewed most all of the websites and discuss lists of the other North American ALSs, I can confidently report that most all of them are totally bereft of such (with a few notable exceptions). When the ALAC Review commences in earnest, I'm sure that we'll see this all properly documented. --- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
I think your comments are after the fact. Randy's organization went through the at-large application process , which includes a due diligence review and discussion and approval by the at-large committee. it was approved, and as such is a certified at-large structure.
if you want to comment on the appropriateness or not of an accredited ALS, then please - don't just pick on one, but review and comment the entire list of other certified structures.
The list of ALS applications is available here - http:// alac.icann.org/applications/
Personally, Randy's views and those of his organization have been, and no doubt will continue to be useful and constructive. Yes it's from a slightly different perspective, but welcome none the less.
I look forward to their ongoing participation in the na-ralo and larger at-large community.
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
On 26-Jul-07, at 1:26 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Randy,
You are an individual functioning as an ISP in Hawaii. You are also a domain name reseller for GoDaddy and Register.com, and you also manage a portfolio of over 900 monetized parking pages.
So, I understand where you are coming from... just like MarkMonitor that offers domain services for a niche community (the intellectual property folk), you are offering domain services that are marketed for the "domainers and Internet users in America".
The "at-large" has become your marketing vehicle, and apparently the most important thing that you took out of the San Juan experience was your complimentary membership with the .mobi folks.
I can accept all that as the basis for a view that promotes special-interest segments ahead of the unrepresented public interest segment.
What I can't accept is the notion that your organization properly belongs in the NARALO as an at-large organization. From what I have seen over the course of the last few years, you have no active membership. You have no articles posted by anyone other than yourself. You have no publicly archived discussion forums. You have no posted organizational minutes.
Summing it up, you're an individual with a financial interest in domain name activities that put up a website hoping to become an organization...
...I can understand that course of action; there are some long-time participants in the GNSO GA that have acted in similar fashion.
Frankly, there also have been many ALSs that are in the process for other than purely honorable reasons -- just look at all those European ALSs that signed up primarily to get their hands on travel funding for the earlier Athens IGF session; since they signed up they've contributed almost nothing to the At-Large process...
...but at least you contribute. I'm prepared to accept your contributions as an individual since the NARALO allows for individuals, but I'm having a hard time accepting the notion that AmericaAtLarge speaks for the broader at-large community.
regards, Danny
--- "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure,
by 'constituency organizations,' I mean the Nomcom should be appointed by and made up of individuals found somewhere within the NARALO, ALAC, SSAC, RSSAC, TLG, ASO, GNSO, CCNSO, etc.
______________________________________________________________________
______________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-
lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/ _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.19/918 - Release Date: 7/25/2007 14:55 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.19/918 - Release Date: 7/25/2007 14:55
Hi Jacqueline, It might help to also post the certification requirements. From what I can ascertain, under the current guidelines even VeriSign would be eligible to become an ALS: 1. they distribute information on relevant ICANN activities and issues; they host domain forums; they involve individual members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions. 2. all corporation members are individual internet users 3. they are self-supporting 4. their goals, structure etc. are posted on the internet If VeriSign applied for ALS status, would you regard them as suitably designated representatives of the at-large? --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi Danny Thanks for the reminder on de-certification. Jacqueline
____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
Danny: A more elaborate process for ALS certification was developed at the recent San Juan meeting. I can't seem to find it on the ALAC wiki - it should be there as you'll be able to see that the criteria is far more extensive now. Let me suggest either Jacqueline or Nick post it on the wiki, so you - and the public can see the document . regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 26-Jul-07, at 3:31 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Hi Jacqueline,
It might help to also post the certification requirements. From what I can ascertain, under the current guidelines even VeriSign would be eligible to become an ALS:
1. they distribute information on relevant ICANN activities and issues; they host domain forums; they involve individual members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions.
2. all corporation members are individual internet users
3. they are self-supporting
4. their goals, structure etc. are posted on the internet
If VeriSign applied for ALS status, would you regard them as suitably designated representatives of the at-large?
--- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi Danny Thanks for the reminder on de-certification. Jacqueline
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
Robert, I reviewed that document earlier today (and I still have many concerns), but I can't tell if the document has been ratified through the formal voting process. What is the document's status? --- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
A more elaborate process for ALS certification was developed at the recent San Juan meeting. I can't seem to find it on the ALAC wiki - it should be there as you'll be able to see that the criteria is far more extensive now.
Let me suggest either Jacqueline or Nick post it on the wiki, so you - and the public can see the document .
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
On 26-Jul-07, at 3:31 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Hi Jacqueline,
It might help to also post the certification requirements. From what I can ascertain, under the current guidelines even VeriSign would be eligible to become an ALS:
1. they distribute information on relevant ICANN activities and issues; they host domain forums; they involve individual members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions.
2. all corporation members are individual internet users
3. they are self-supporting
4. their goals, structure etc. are posted on the internet
If VeriSign applied for ALS status, would you regard them as suitably designated representatives of the at-large?
--- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi Danny Thanks for the reminder on de-certification. Jacqueline
______________________________________________________________________
______________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/
Danny: the document i was referring to has the title: ALAC-2007-SD-2-Rev6 Proposed ALS Application Interpretation Guidelines - EN. An accompanying due diligence Interpretation guide accompanies it. Is that the one you are referring to, or something else? Not sure how wide the call for comments was prior to the San Juan meeting. At the meeting, there was a lot of discussions and a lot of amendments proposed. In the end, i think it has been made a bit better. The current status, is - approved - pending minor cleanup. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 26-Jul-07, at 5:06 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Robert,
I reviewed that document earlier today (and I still have many concerns), but I can't tell if the document has been ratified through the formal voting process. What is the document's status?
--- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
A more elaborate process for ALS certification was developed at the recent San Juan meeting. I can't seem to find it on the ALAC wiki - it should be there as you'll be able to see that the criteria is far more extensive now.
Let me suggest either Jacqueline or Nick post it on the wiki, so you - and the public can see the document .
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
On 26-Jul-07, at 3:31 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Hi Jacqueline,
It might help to also post the certification requirements. From what I can ascertain, under the current guidelines even VeriSign would be eligible to become an ALS:
1. they distribute information on relevant ICANN activities and issues; they host domain forums; they involve individual members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions.
2. all corporation members are individual internet users
3. they are self-supporting
4. their goals, structure etc. are posted on the internet
If VeriSign applied for ALS status, would you regard them as suitably designated representatives of the at-large?
--- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi Danny Thanks for the reminder on de-certification. Jacqueline
______________________________________________________________________
______________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/
Robert, I've seen the 26th June 2007 document ALAC/2007/SD/2.Rev6 marked "DRAFT", and under the criteria cited therein VeriSign could apply for ALS status and be recognized as an organization representing the at-large. Is this also your assessment? --- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
the document i was referring to has the title:
ALAC-2007-SD-2-Rev6 Proposed ALS Application Interpretation Guidelines - EN. An accompanying due diligence Interpretation guide accompanies it.
Is that the one you are referring to, or something else?
____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
Danny: On 27-Jul-07, at 8:46 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Robert,
I've seen the 26th June 2007 document ALAC/2007/SD/2.Rev6 marked "DRAFT", and under the criteria cited therein VeriSign could apply for ALS status and be recognized as an organization representing the at-large. Is this also your assessment?
I disagree. I think verisign or any other commercial (or govt) entity would not eligible. If i'm not mistaken there is a clause in the text , perhaps in the one of the criteria sections (perhaps #2) that specify that organizations that are controlled or directed by for-profit or governmental entities are not eligible. I know there was a big discussion about the clause in question . those from NA , Europe and perhaps LAC (no sure) thought that govts and commercial entities should be excluded. However colleagues from AP and Africa mentioned that in their region it often the case that user groups are multi-stakeholder in nature. There was a bit of an impasse until someone came up with the text below that allowed regions to have a bit more flexibility: Where a RALO believes that these Guidelines would have the effect of denying otherwise bona-fide[1] organizations being accredited due to the unique characteristics of the development of that Region’s Internet community, the RALO General Assembly shall notify the ALAC in writing of the need to modify these Guidelines and the reasons for doing so. Where the ALAC does not object, and the ICANN General Counsel does not see the variation as in conflict with the Bylaws of ICANN and the Minimum Criteria as set by the Board, the modification shall prevail over the clause, or clauses, in question in these Guidelines for that RALO [1] bona-fide in this context meaning “legitimate” or “acceptable”. As the document is one that the ALAC chair and Nick are more familiar with, i'd prefer to defer to them to clarify any issues that you have and if in fact the new guidelines would exclude commercial entities or allow them as you imply. If indeed the rules & guidelines allow verisign in - then, we'd need to fix the text. If that proves to be the case, would you be able to put forward specific amendments to the text - ones that address your point but at the same time take into consideration the regional concerns mentioned by the At-large communities from Africa and Asia Pacific. regards Robert
Robert, Clause 2 (you're probably thinking of section C) only refers to umbrella organizations. I would advise getting a formal ruling from ICANN Legal Staff as to whether ICANN is empowered to discriminate against legally constituted commercial organizations. --- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
On 27-Jul-07, at 8:46 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Robert,
I've seen the 26th June 2007 document ALAC/2007/SD/2.Rev6 marked "DRAFT", and under the criteria cited therein VeriSign could apply for ALS status and be recognized as an organization representing the at-large. Is this also your assessment?
I disagree. I think verisign or any other commercial (or govt) entity would not eligible.
If i'm not mistaken there is a clause in the text , perhaps in the one of the criteria sections (perhaps #2) that specify that organizations that are controlled or directed by for-profit or governmental entities are not eligible.
I know there was a big discussion about the clause in question . those from NA , Europe and perhaps LAC (no sure) thought that govts and commercial entities should be excluded. However colleagues from AP and Africa mentioned that in their region it often the case that user groups are multi-stakeholder in nature. There was a bit of an impasse until someone came up with the text below that allowed regions to have a bit more flexibility:
Where a RALO believes that these Guidelines would have the effect of denying otherwise bona-fide[1] organizations being accredited due to the unique characteristics of the development of that Regions Internet community, the RALO General Assembly shall notify the ALAC in writing of the need to modify these Guidelines and the reasons for doing so. Where the ALAC does not object, and the ICANN General Counsel does not see the variation as in conflict with the Bylaws of ICANN and the Minimum Criteria as set by the Board, the modification shall prevail over the clause, or clauses, in question in these Guidelines for that RALO
[1] bona-fide in this context meaning legitimate or acceptable.
As the document is one that the ALAC chair and Nick are more familiar with, i'd prefer to defer to them to clarify any issues that you have and if in fact the new guidelines would exclude commercial entities or allow them as you imply.
If indeed the rules & guidelines allow verisign in - then, we'd need to fix the text. If that proves to be the case, would you be able to put forward specific amendments to the text - ones that address your point but at the same time take into consideration the regional concerns mentioned by the At-large communities from Africa and Asia Pacific.
regards
Robert
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
All of this has been through legal review. On 27 Jul 2007, at 14:58, Danny Younger wrote:
Robert,
Clause 2 (you're probably thinking of section C) only refers to umbrella organizations.
I would advise getting a formal ruling from ICANN Legal Staff as to whether ICANN is empowered to discriminate against legally constituted commercial organizations.
--- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
On 27-Jul-07, at 8:46 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Robert,
I've seen the 26th June 2007 document ALAC/2007/SD/2.Rev6 marked "DRAFT", and under the criteria cited therein VeriSign could apply for ALS status and be recognized as an organization representing the at-large. Is this also your assessment?
I disagree. I think verisign or any other commercial (or govt) entity would not eligible.
If i'm not mistaken there is a clause in the text , perhaps in the one of the criteria sections (perhaps #2) that specify that organizations that are controlled or directed by for-profit or governmental entities are not eligible.
I know there was a big discussion about the clause in question . those from NA , Europe and perhaps LAC (no sure) thought that govts and commercial entities should be excluded. However colleagues from AP and Africa mentioned that in their region it often the case that user groups are multi-stakeholder in nature. There was a bit of an impasse until someone came up with the text below that allowed regions to have a bit more flexibility:
Where a RALO believes that these Guidelines would have the effect of denying otherwise bona-fide[1] organizations being accredited due to the unique characteristics of the development of that Region’s Internet community, the RALO General Assembly shall notify the ALAC in writing of the need to modify these Guidelines and the reasons for doing so. Where the ALAC does not object, and the ICANN General Counsel does not see the variation as in conflict with the Bylaws of ICANN and the Minimum Criteria as set by the Board, the modification shall prevail over the clause, or clauses, in question in these Guidelines for that RALO
[1] bona-fide in this context meaning “legitimate” or “acceptable”.
As the document is one that the ALAC chair and Nick are more familiar with, i'd prefer to defer to them to clarify any issues that you have and if in fact the new guidelines would exclude commercial entities or allow them as you imply.
If indeed the rules & guidelines allow verisign in - then, we'd need to fix the text. If that proves to be the case, would you be able to put forward specific amendments to the text - ones that address your point but at the same time take into consideration the regional concerns mentioned by the At-large communities from Africa and Asia Pacific.
regards
Robert
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
That would not be a correct judgment. Robert's excellent summary that follows covers the 'why' quite well I think. On 27 Jul 2007, at 13:46, Danny Younger wrote:
Robert,
I've seen the 26th June 2007 document ALAC/2007/SD/2.Rev6 marked "DRAFT", and under the criteria cited therein VeriSign could apply for ALS status and be recognized as an organization representing the at-large. Is this also your assessment?
--- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
the document i was referring to has the title:
ALAC-2007-SD-2-Rev6 Proposed ALS Application Interpretation Guidelines - EN. An accompanying due diligence Interpretation guide accompanies it.
Is that the one you are referring to, or something else?
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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
No -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 08:47 To: Robert Guerra Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: [At-Large] NomCom review Robert, I've seen the 26th June 2007 document ALAC/2007/SD/2.Rev6 marked "DRAFT", and under the criteria cited therein VeriSign could apply for ALS status and be recognized as an organization representing the at-large. Is this also your assessment? --- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
the document i was referring to has the title:
ALAC-2007-SD-2-Rev6 Proposed ALS Application Interpretation Guidelines - EN. An accompanying due diligence Interpretation guide accompanies it.
Is that the one you are referring to, or something else?
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/922 - Release Date: 7/27/2007 06:08 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/922 - Release Date: 7/27/2007 06:08
Hello Jacqueline, Perhaps I missed it, but can you point me to the explicit language that states that commercial entities are precluded from participation? Sorry, but I just don't see that language in there. --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
No
____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
And to the substance Randy's organization went through the process and was accredited. If NARALO feels that it shouldn't be accredited, then you can use your processes to report such to ALAC, and it can be dealt with (as soon as we finalise the decertification process) I can't say about the mailing lists of other ALSes, as I really don't have time to grub about the archives of the other 100 or so groups, but the ALS that I am a very active member of has got a special list just for ICANN issues, and members who are interested subscribe to that - summaries of the discussions there go to the general membership. That might be a way for ALSes with broader interests to facilitate discussion without annoying the members who aren't particularly interested in ICANN issues. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 14:10 To: Robert Guerra; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: [At-Large] NomCom review Hello Robert, I look forward to your posting of the de-certification procedures. At issue, for me, is whether we are receiving the benefit of organizational responses, or merely the personal viewpoints of those that claim to represent an organization. ...and I'll be happy to address the issue of other organizations. The theory was that DNS/ICANN-related information would be conveyed to the ALSs by way of their representatives who would then aggregate the responses and pass the input back through to the RALO. I don't think I have ever seen any such materials passed onto the web405 discussion list (as but one example), and having reviewed most all of the websites and discuss lists of the other North American ALSs, I can confidently report that most all of them are totally bereft of such (with a few notable exceptions). When the ALAC Review commences in earnest, I'm sure that we'll see this all properly documented. --- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
I think your comments are after the fact. Randy's organization went through the at-large application process , which includes a due diligence review and discussion and approval by the at-large committee. it was approved, and as such is a certified at-large structure.
if you want to comment on the appropriateness or not of an accredited ALS, then please - don't just pick on one, but review and comment the entire list of other certified structures.
The list of ALS applications is available here - http:// alac.icann.org/applications/
Personally, Randy's views and those of his organization have been, and no doubt will continue to be useful and constructive. Yes it's from a slightly different perspective, but welcome none the less.
I look forward to their ongoing participation in the na-ralo and larger at-large community.
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
On 26-Jul-07, at 1:26 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Randy,
You are an individual functioning as an ISP in Hawaii. You are also a domain name reseller for GoDaddy and Register.com, and you also manage a portfolio of over 900 monetized parking pages.
So, I understand where you are coming from... just like MarkMonitor that offers domain services for a niche community (the intellectual property folk), you are offering domain services that are marketed for the "domainers and Internet users in America".
The "at-large" has become your marketing vehicle, and apparently the most important thing that you took out of the San Juan experience was your complimentary membership with the .mobi folks.
I can accept all that as the basis for a view that promotes special-interest segments ahead of the unrepresented public interest segment.
What I can't accept is the notion that your organization properly belongs in the NARALO as an at-large organization. From what I have seen over the course of the last few years, you have no active membership. You have no articles posted by anyone other than yourself. You have no publicly archived discussion forums. You have no posted organizational minutes.
Summing it up, you're an individual with a financial interest in domain name activities that put up a website hoping to become an organization...
...I can understand that course of action; there are some long-time participants in the GNSO GA that have acted in similar fashion.
Frankly, there also have been many ALSs that are in the process for other than purely honorable reasons -- just look at all those European ALSs that signed up primarily to get their hands on travel funding for the earlier Athens IGF session; since they signed up they've contributed almost nothing to the At-Large process...
...but at least you contribute. I'm prepared to accept your contributions as an individual since the NARALO allows for individuals, but I'm having a hard time accepting the notion that AmericaAtLarge speaks for the broader at-large community.
regards, Danny
--- "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure,
by 'constituency organizations,' I mean the Nomcom should be appointed by and made up of individuals found somewhere within the NARALO, ALAC, SSAC, RSSAC, TLG, ASO, GNSO, CCNSO, etc.
______________________________________________________________________
______________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-
lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/ _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.19/918 - Release Date: 7/25/2007 14:55 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.19/918 - Release Date: 7/25/2007 14:55
Danny: On 26-Jul-07, at 2:09 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Hello Robert,
I look forward to your posting of the de-certification procedures.
I don't see de-certification procedures as someone one individual should develop. Instead it should be the broader at-large community in collaboration with the ALAC. To my knowledge, the only region that has discussed this at all is LAC. If you like, I can ask them to post a summary of what they have discussed and/or developed to-date.
When the ALAC Review commences in earnest, I'm sure that we'll see this all properly documented.
I think the deadline for the ALAC review RFP closed earlier this week. Hopefully, the result will be announced soon. regards Robert
Robert: Apparently the bylaws don't give a role in this matter to the broader at-large community, only to the ALAC: bylaws: "Decisions to certify or decertify an At-Large Structure shall require a 2/3 majority among all of the members of the ALAC who cast a vote, provided at least nine members of the ALAC cast a vote according to procedures adopted by the Committee. These decisions shall be subject to review according to procedures established by the Board." --- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
I don't see de-certification procedures as someone one individual should develop. Instead it should be the broader at-large community in collaboration with the ALAC.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Danny, How does this personal attack on Randy/A@L address the actual points that he made? Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Danny Younger Sent: Thu 7/26/2007 1:26 PM To: RJGlass | America@Large Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: [At-Large] NomCom review Randy, You are an individual functioning as an ISP in Hawaii. You are also a domain name reseller for GoDaddy and Register.com, and you also manage a portfolio of over 900 monetized parking pages. So, I understand where you are coming from... just like MarkMonitor that offers domain services for a niche community (the intellectual property folk), you are offering domain services that are marketed for the "domainers and Internet users in America". The "at-large" has become your marketing vehicle, and apparently the most important thing that you took out of the San Juan experience was your complimentary membership with the .mobi folks. I can accept all that as the basis for a view that promotes special-interest segments ahead of the unrepresented public interest segment. What I can't accept is the notion that your organization properly belongs in the NARALO as an at-large organization. From what I have seen over the course of the last few years, you have no active membership. You have no articles posted by anyone other than yourself. You have no publicly archived discussion forums. You have no posted organizational minutes. Summing it up, you're an individual with a financial interest in domain name activities that put up a website hoping to become an organization... ...I can understand that course of action; there are some long-time participants in the GNSO GA that have acted in similar fashion. Frankly, there also have been many ALSs that are in the process for other than purely honorable reasons -- just look at all those European ALSs that signed up primarily to get their hands on travel funding for the earlier Athens IGF session; since they signed up they've contributed almost nothing to the At-Large process... ...but at least you contribute. I'm prepared to accept your contributions as an individual since the NARALO allows for individuals, but I'm having a hard time accepting the notion that AmericaAtLarge speaks for the broader at-large community. regards, Danny --- "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure,
by 'constituency organizations,' I mean the Nomcom should be appointed by and made up of individuals found somewhere within the NARALO, ALAC, SSAC, RSSAC, TLG, ASO, GNSO, CCNSO, etc.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Danny, Let me clarify, since you are tactlessly calling me out. 1) I am not an "individual functioning as an ISP." My company is not an ISP. I haven't marketed or dealt with ISP services since dialup. 2) I am not nor have been a reseller for register.com 3) At-Large has never been a marketing vehicle for me or anything related to me. 4) I manage a portfolio of well over 900 domains, some of which are currently using monetized parking pages. None of which is any concern of yours. If you would like to lease one I'd happily refer you to my agent. 5) There is no requirement to post minutes, archives, or anything else not required by the initial application. All requirements have been substantiated. 6) If you have a problem regarding lack of contribution within my membership base then why dont you get involved? Some people, for reasons apparent here, prefer not to present their views as publicly as I do. 7) AmericaAtLarge is a valid nonprofit organization, currently applying for 501c3 status - which is not a requirement of ICANN. 8) As a nonprofit, I can also sell T-shirts and coffe mugs in order to generate operating capital. Any suggestions? 9) Finally, you are out of line. Your tone toward this discussion does not warrant further explanation, although I would like to. So, should we dig into your background and reasons for being here now?? Randy Glass A@L On 7/26/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy,
You are an individual functioning as an ISP in Hawaii. You are also a domain name reseller for GoDaddy and Register.com, and you also manage a portfolio of over 900 monetized parking pages.
So, I understand where you are coming from... just like MarkMonitor that offers domain services for a niche community (the intellectual property folk), you are offering domain services that are marketed for the "domainers and Internet users in America".
The "at-large" has become your marketing vehicle, and apparently the most important thing that you took out of the San Juan experience was your complimentary membership with the .mobi folks.
I can accept all that as the basis for a view that promotes special-interest segments ahead of the unrepresented public interest segment.
What I can't accept is the notion that your organization properly belongs in the NARALO as an at-large organization. From what I have seen over the course of the last few years, you have no active membership. You have no articles posted by anyone other than yourself. You have no publicly archived discussion forums. You have no posted organizational minutes.
Summing it up, you're an individual with a financial interest in domain name activities that put up a website hoping to become an organization...
...I can understand that course of action; there are some long-time participants in the GNSO GA that have acted in similar fashion.
Frankly, there also have been many ALSs that are in the process for other than purely honorable reasons -- just look at all those European ALSs that signed up primarily to get their hands on travel funding for the earlier Athens IGF session; since they signed up they've contributed almost nothing to the At-Large process...
...but at least you contribute. I'm prepared to accept your contributions as an individual since the NARALO allows for individuals, but I'm having a hard time accepting the notion that AmericaAtLarge speaks for the broader at-large community.
regards, Danny
--- "RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure,
by 'constituency organizations,' I mean the Nomcom should be appointed by and made up of individuals found somewhere within the NARALO, ALAC, SSAC, RSSAC, TLG, ASO, GNSO, CCNSO, etc.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
In my opinion, the NomCom should be made up by and appointed by the constituency organizations. That' s essentially the polar opposite of what I suggested.
Doing so would, with the exception of NCUC, pretty well shut out anything resembling the public interest in the nomination process. Most of what I saw as defined as "constituencies" were the organizations of vested interests and pressure groups -- registries, IP hoarders, etc. to whom free expression, accessibility and transparency are all consumed by commercial pursuits. At-Large was, so far as I can tell, invented to try to counter the well-established, well-funded constituencies. IMO having the constituencies run the NomComm guarantees a future ICANN board that is more than happy to (further) remove the public interest from its future directions. - Evan
I've been informed that the three North American At-Large Advisory representatives (Alan, Beau and myself) get to appoint one voting member of the nomcom. I am not sure what the process is... Having just learned this, my view is that the NA RALO must be consulted and play a key role in this most important decision. How we should go about this, i'm not sure.I'm open to suggestions. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 26-Jul-07, at 9:08 AM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
In my opinion, the NomCom should be made up by and appointed by the constituency organizations.
Randy Glass A@L
On 7/23/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote: Robert Guerra wrote:
Questions and comments related to Nomcom were raised during the NA RALO discussions @ San Juan. Would be good to collect the comments and send them in.
I remember Evan having the most # of comments on this issue. correct?
From the high-level view, I'm very uncomfortable with the move of the Board from being chosen by direct elections to one made from the selections of a NomComm that is multiple levels removed from the public. There's also some feedback loop logic inherent in a process in which ALAC picks members of NonComm who then pick members of ALAC.
If direct Board elections aren't in the cards soon then the NomComm ought to be substantially -- if not overwhelmingly -- populated by people who are there to protect the public interest and the focus on ICANN's mandate (ie, not general Internet governance and not trademark treaties). My initial preference would be that the NomComm would be populated by one appointment from each NSO and one from each At-Large Region as well as the previous Chair of the Board -- but I can be easily swayed to other models that preserve the intent.
I have other opinions related to the relationship between the ALAC and the NomComm, but that may be more appropriate for the ALAC review. My view here is that there should be NO NomComm-selected people on ALAC. If there is a pressing need for a third person from each region not picked by RALOs, then that spot should be elected by At-Large individuals not affiliated to a RALO in each region. (IMO this may help address the "enfranchisement of the unaffiliated", if only partially. It's still a far cry from direct Board elections.)
Having said all this. I promised I would limit my participation on issues that weren't specifically project or policy related. Neither the composition of NomComm nor of ALAC will be of any relevance (from our POV) if at-large doesn't contribute to policy. I've now stated my piece and will leave the rest to others, unless I'm specifically dragged in (as happened here ;-) ).
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Hi Robert Slight clarification: Article XI,S2,4(e) e. The ALAC shall annually appoint one non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors, without limitation on re-appointment, and shall, after consultation with each RALO, annually appoint five voting delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of countries in the same Geographic Region, as defined according to HYPERLINK "http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-5"Section 5 of Article VI) to the Nominating Committee. The entire ALAC appoints after consultation, not just the 3 regional reps. I’ve emailed the Secretariats already to ask them to get the RALOs to give us their recommendations soon. If you can assist in getting the process going in the NA region, that would be greatly appreciated. Jacqueline From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists@privaterra.info] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:01 To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: [At-Large] NomCom review I've been informed that the three North American At-Large Advisory representatives (Alan, Beau and myself) get to appoint one voting member of the nomcom. I am not sure what the process is... Having just learned this, my view is that the NA RALO must be consulted and play a key role in this most important decision. How we should go about this, i'm not sure.I'm open to suggestions. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <HYPERLINK "mailto:rguerra@privaterra.ca"rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 26-Jul-07, at 9:08 AM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote: In my opinion, the NomCom should be made up by and appointed by the constituency organizations. Randy Glass A@L On 7/23/07, Evan Leibovitch <HYPERLINK "mailto:evan@telly.org"evan@telly.org> wrote: Robert Guerra wrote:
Questions and comments related to Nomcom were raised during the NA RALO discussions @ San Juan. Would be good to collect the comments and send them in.
I remember Evan having the most # of comments on this issue. correct?
From the high-level view, I'm very uncomfortable with the move of the Board from being chosen by direct elections to one made from the selections of a NomComm that is multiple levels removed from the public. There's also some feedback loop logic inherent in a process in which ALAC picks members of NonComm who then pick members of ALAC.
If direct Board elections aren't in the cards soon then the NomComm ought to be substantially -- if not overwhelmingly -- populated by people who are there to protect the public interest and the focus on ICANN's mandate (ie, not general Internet governance and not trademark treaties). My initial preference would be that the NomComm would be populated by one appointment from each NSO and one from each At-Large Region as well as the previous Chair of the Board -- but I can be easily swayed to other models that preserve the intent. I have other opinions related to the relationship between the ALAC and the NomComm, but that may be more appropriate for the ALAC review. My view here is that there should be NO NomComm-selected people on ALAC. If there is a pressing need for a third person from each region not picked by RALOs, then that spot should be elected by At-Large individuals not affiliated to a RALO in each region. (IMO this may help address the "enfranchisement of the unaffiliated", if only partially. It's still a far cry from direct Board elections.) Having said all this. I promised I would limit my participation on issues that weren't specifically project or policy related. Neither the composition of NomComm nor of ALAC will be of any relevance (from our POV) if at-large doesn't contribute to policy. I've now stated my piece and will leave the rest to others, unless I'm specifically dragged in (as happened here ;-) ). - Evan _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list HYPERLINK "mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org"NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.or g HYPERLINK "http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic ann.org"http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-l ists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: HYPERLINK "http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU"http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: HYPERLINK "http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP"http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: HYPERLINK "http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct"http://www.icannwiki.org/NA RALO_Code_of_Conduct -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list HYPERLINK "mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org"NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.or g HYPERLINK "http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic ann.org"http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-l ists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: HYPERLINK "http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU"http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: HYPERLINK "http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP"http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: HYPERLINK "http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct"http://www.icannwiki.org/NA RALO_Code_of_Conduct No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.19/918 - Release Date: 7/25/2007 14:55 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.19/918 - Release Date: 7/25/2007 14:55
Actually the situation is somewhat less clear than that in legal terms: ICANN Bylaws, Article XI,S2,4(e) The ALAC shall annually appoint one non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors, without limitation on re-appointment, and shall, after consultation with each RALO, annually appoint five voting delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of countries in the same Geographic Region, as defined according to Section 5 of Article VI) to the Nominating Committee On 26 Jul 2007, at 15:01, Robert Guerra wrote:
I've been informed that the three North American At-Large Advisory representatives (Alan, Beau and myself) get to appoint one voting member of the nomcom. I am not sure what the process is...
Having just learned this, my view is that the NA RALO must be consulted and play a key role in this most important decision. How we should go about this, i'm not sure.I'm open to suggestions.
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
On 26-Jul-07, at 9:08 AM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
In my opinion, the NomCom should be made up by and appointed by the constituency organizations.
Randy Glass A@L
On 7/23/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote: Robert Guerra wrote:
Questions and comments related to Nomcom were raised during the NA RALO discussions @ San Juan. Would be good to collect the comments and send them in.
I remember Evan having the most # of comments on this issue. correct?
From the high-level view, I'm very uncomfortable with the move of the Board from being chosen by direct elections to one made from the selections of a NomComm that is multiple levels removed from the public. There's also some feedback loop logic inherent in a process in which ALAC picks members of NonComm who then pick members of ALAC.
If direct Board elections aren't in the cards soon then the NomComm ought to be substantially -- if not overwhelmingly -- populated by people who are there to protect the public interest and the focus on ICANN's mandate (ie, not general Internet governance and not trademark treaties). My initial preference would be that the NomComm would be populated by one appointment from each NSO and one from each At-Large Region as well as the previous Chair of the Board -- but I can be easily swayed to other models that preserve the intent.
I have other opinions related to the relationship between the ALAC and the NomComm, but that may be more appropriate for the ALAC review. My view here is that there should be NO NomComm-selected people on ALAC. If there is a pressing need for a third person from each region not picked by RALOs, then that spot should be elected by At-Large individuals not affiliated to a RALO in each region. (IMO this may help address the "enfranchisement of the unaffiliated", if only partially. It's still a far cry from direct Board elections.)
Having said all this. I promised I would limit my participation on issues that weren't specifically project or policy related. Neither the composition of NomComm nor of ALAC will be of any relevance (from our POV) if at-large doesn't contribute to policy. I've now stated my piece and will leave the rest to others, unless I'm specifically dragged in (as happened here ;-) ).
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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
In practice, in past years, the members of the ALAC from a given region have suggested whom to appoint from their region, and the rest of the ALAC has deferred to their selection and affirmed it. As a practical matter, if Robert, Beau and Alan agree on a candidate, it should be affirmed. On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Actually the situation is somewhat less clear than that in legal terms:
ICANN Bylaws, Article XI,S2,4(e)
The ALAC shall annually appoint one non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors, without limitation on re-appointment, and shall, after consultation with each RALO, annually appoint five voting delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of countries in the same Geographic Region, as defined according to Section 5 of Article VI) to the Nominating Committee
On 26 Jul 2007, at 15:01, Robert Guerra wrote:
I've been informed that the three North American At-Large Advisory representatives (Alan, Beau and myself) get to appoint one voting member of the nomcom. I am not sure what the process is...
Having just learned this, my view is that the NA RALO must be consulted and play a key role in this most important decision. How we should go about this, i'm not sure.I'm open to suggestions.
participants (8)
-
Bret Fausett -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Robert Guerra -
Thompson, Darlene