Re: [NA-Discuss] The status of ALSes (was Ramping up for the election - General Procedures) Intellectual Property Section of the HSBA
You're welcome Seth. I don't doubt for a second the existence of a healthy IP Section, either of the Bar Assn or at Richardson, and it occurred to me that while the IP Sections are already amply represented in the GNSO, the Cyberlaw Sections, as well as the sundry LSAs are not, and each would be a reasonable ALS candidate organization with purposes reasonably congruent with ICANN's purpose in having a RALO composed in part of organizations meeting the criteria for certification as ALSes. I suggest finding a temporary home on the net, wordpress or something, and asking Staff to update the record in https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+ALSes to reflect the loss of hiip.org a new home on the net. Eric
hi, Interesting exercise. And a useful one if we ever start to have a discussion on ALS voting for Board seats. Is there a chart of which ALS have been active etc.. I think it would be good to see a list that covered issues like: - when accepted to by ralo - active/not active - notification of date informed of inactive status - votes participated in - number of members - representative name - alternate representative (if we have such a notion) Or do we already have something like this and I just have not looked in the right place. As for how each of the ALS organizes itself internally, and the means by which they make decisions regarding ALS stuff, I tend towards subsidiarity. Except of course for the individuals-ALS, their processes for self organization and decision making should be discussed by the RALO generally, though I do think it should be their decision which the RALO vets. avri
Avri,
Interesting exercise.
s/Interesting/Depressing/.
And a useful one if we ever ...
Well, I wouldn't suggest that it is necessarily lacking utility until some condition not yet present ripens. That would imply that all prior efforts to understand the problem were necessarily futile, when they may have just been made so through inaction. See below.
Or do we already have something like this and I just have not looked in the right place.
You might look in the "NARALO Secretariat Monthly Reports", one exists for the previous five months of 2013, two exist for the 12 months of 2012, with no reference to ALS inactivity for in these three actual of eighteen possible reports. In a segment of the single report for 2011 dated July 18, the following reference appears: "1. The issue of non-performing ALSs was put to the group. It is being undertaken by the Secretariats group and Darlene will keep everyone posted on this." In the same report, in a segment dated June 13, 2011, the following reference appears: "3. The issue of non-performing ALSs was discussed. A comparison was made to the efforts that EURALO has made. It was noted that we do have mechanisms in place so that non-performing ALSs do not affect our quorum. Alan is going to research this further and post it to the list." In a segment of the single report for 2010 dated July 12, 2010, the following reference appears: "4. The topic of Inreach to existing non-active ALSs was discussed as well as follow-up activities resulting from the ALS survey." In the same report, in a segment dated "March", the following reference appears: "One thing that was identified as a need for our region was the need to do “in-reach”. We have ALSs that used to be quite active that we hardly hear from any more." There are no prior "NARALO Secretariat Monthly Reports" at this URL.
As for how each of the ALS organizes itself internally, and the means by which they make decisions regarding ALS stuff, I tend towards subsidiarity.
Within the constraints of the responsibilities stated on each of the Memorandizing Parties, I agree. However, absent a specific waiver of these responsibilities of those Parties in breach, or a general waiver of these responsibilities relieving all Parties of breach, or an uncontested public general repudiation of these responsibilities by the breaching Parties, these responsibilities appear to remain binding.
Except of course for the individuals-ALS, their processes for self organization and decision making should be discussed by the RALO generally, though I do think it should be their decision which the RALO vets.
Again, the responsibilities stated on each of the Memorandizing Parties cannot be presumed to be fictive and the subsequent rules and procedures -- the NARALO Operating Principles of 2007, revised 3 October 2010, may not substantively alter these original responsibilities. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Personally I believe the problem isn't with the ALS's we've got but with the ones we haven't got. We need more. On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
Avri,
Interesting exercise.
s/Interesting/Depressing/.
And a useful one if we ever ...
Well, I wouldn't suggest that it is necessarily lacking utility until some condition not yet present ripens. That would imply that all prior efforts to understand the problem were necessarily futile, when they may have just been made so through inaction. See below.
Or do we already have something like this and I just have not looked in the right place.
You might look in the "NARALO Secretariat Monthly Reports", one exists for the previous five months of 2013, two exist for the 12 months of 2012, with no reference to ALS inactivity for in these three actual of eighteen possible reports.
In a segment of the single report for 2011 dated July 18, the following reference appears:
"1. The issue of non-performing ALSs was put to the group. It is being undertaken by the Secretariats group and Darlene will keep everyone posted on this."
In the same report, in a segment dated June 13, 2011, the following reference appears:
"3. The issue of non-performing ALSs was discussed. A comparison was made to the efforts that EURALO has made. It was noted that we do have mechanisms in place so that non-performing ALSs do not affect our quorum. Alan is going to research this further and post it to the list."
In a segment of the single report for 2010 dated July 12, 2010, the following reference appears:
"4. The topic of Inreach to existing non-active ALSs was discussed as well as follow-up activities resulting from the ALS survey."
In the same report, in a segment dated "March", the following reference appears:
"One thing that was identified as a need for our region was the need to do “in-reach”. We have ALSs that used to be quite active that we hardly hear from any more."
There are no prior "NARALO Secretariat Monthly Reports" at this URL.
As for how each of the ALS organizes itself internally, and the means by which they make decisions regarding ALS stuff, I tend towards subsidiarity.
Within the constraints of the responsibilities stated on each of the Memorandizing Parties, I agree. However, absent a specific waiver of these responsibilities of those Parties in breach, or a general waiver of these responsibilities relieving all Parties of breach, or an uncontested public general repudiation of these responsibilities by the breaching Parties, these responsibilities appear to remain binding.
Except of course for the individuals-ALS, their processes for self organization and decision making should be discussed by the RALO generally, though I do think it should be their decision which the RALO vets.
Again, the responsibilities stated on each of the Memorandizing Parties cannot be presumed to be fictive and the subsequent rules and procedures -- the NARALO Operating Principles of 2007, revised 3 October 2010, may not substantively alter these original responsibilities.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
On 6/8/13 1:04 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
Personally I believe the problem isn't with the ALS's we've got but with the ones we haven't got. We need more.
I concur that more, and more, for want of a better word, broadly subscribed organizations, would, if they could be induced to invest the time and attention in "At-Large" as a means to advance the public interest, be likely to improve a Regional At-Large Organization, possibly even this one. I do not concur that no currently certified ALS of this RALO is relieved of its enumerated responsibilities, nor do I concur that abandonment of responsibilities is without harm, nor do I concur that current harm can be excused by anticipation of subsequent benefit. I therefor personally believe, unlike yourself, that there is "a problem with the ones we've got", where "ones" is understood to mean one or more, but not all. Did you have the opportunity to express your personal belief when this issue was previously raised and entered in the record, viz July and June of 2011, and July and March of 2010? I understand the notion that "more will solve", I simply don't observe "more" sufficient to "solve". Thanks for the earlier link to the Python skit, it was of course, quite droll. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
A follow-up. In response to Joly's note earlier today I wrote:
I simply don't observe "more" sufficient to "solve".
The available data shows only five (5) applications certified 54 months. I suggest the inference w.r.t. "growth" is as obvious as it is unfortunate. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Eric, There are a few thing you can do. First, form an ALS within your community. Second, reach out to other groups yourself. Lamentations are for the dead, there's much better use of our time. We have been developing a proactive recruitment plan since Toronto. At Toronto I asked our NARALO members to submit a list of 10 organizations in their community for candidate ALSes. Certainly the U of Oregon has such potential. I think if you focused on that it would be helpful. Thanks, Garth Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Sender: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:38:06 To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] The status of ALSes A follow-up. In response to Joly's note earlier today I wrote:
I simply don't observe "more" sufficient to "solve".
The available data shows only five (5) applications certified 54 months. I suggest the inference w.r.t. "growth" is as obvious as it is unfortunate. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
If we are going to put the the ALS's under the microsope then we need to go further and look how active these members are as to working groups, voting patterns and active involvement. This should definitely be our yardstick for anyone looking to representing NARALO. Glenn Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
hi,
Interesting exercise. And a useful one if we ever start to have a discussion on ALS voting for Board seats.
Is there a chart of which ALS have been active etc..
I think it would be good to see a list that covered issues like:
- when accepted to by ralo - active/not active - notification of date informed of inactive status - votes participated in - number of members - representative name - alternate representative (if we have such a notion)
Or do we already have something like this and I just have not looked in the right place.
As for how each of the ALS organizes itself internally, and the means by which they make decisions regarding ALS stuff, I tend towards subsidiarity.
Except of course for the individuals-ALS, their processes for self organization and decision making should be discussed by the RALO generally, though I do think it should be their decision which the RALO vets.
avri ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 6/8/13 8:42 PM, Glenn McKnight wrote:
If we are going to put the the ALS's under the microsope then we need to go further and look how active these members are as to working groups, voting patterns and active involvement. This should definitely be our yardstick for anyone looking to representing NARALO.
While I don't disagree that engagement is a good, and possibly the best indicator of an At-Large Structure's realization of the commitments made upon application for that status, and a reasonable measure for individuals affiliated with ALSes as representatives of the NARALO, it is possible to directly test each of each ALSes several commitments, which is the subject of my two original notes on this subject, and a spreadsheet and explanatory notes I'll be sending to Staff and the NA-Discuss list later today, and a measure of ALS member activity could not individuals not affiliated with ALSes. Something along the lines of what you've proposed was presented at the Paris ICANN meeting, disclosing, if memory serves, that the recorded votes of the Business Constituency members of the GNSO Council and the recorded votes of the Internet Service Provider Constituency members of the GNSO Council corollated with the recorded votes of the Intellectual Property Constituency, and, that very few proposals leading to recorded votes on policy development originated from either of the Business or Internet Service Provider Constituency. My take-away at the time, and I'd been observing GNSO Council meetings in 2000-2005 and 2007-2009 (year of the Paris meeting), was that real numbers had been put to what was obvious -- the IPC had captured the BC and ISPC, leading to the polarization and gridlock later rationalized in the "reform" creating a Contracted Parties House and a Non-Contracted Parties House, with their polarization and gridlock formalized. I do wish to point out that putting "the ALS's under the microscope" is not something that only "we" can do. The records are public, anyone can study them, as I have, and as was done previously, see the Survey of 2010 as another approach to the available data. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Placed in item 5.7 for today: https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+2013.06.10+Teleconference -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2013 12:15 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] The status of ALSes On 6/8/13 8:42 PM, Glenn McKnight wrote:
If we are going to put the the ALS's under the microsope then we need to go further and look how active these members are as to working groups, voting patterns and active involvement. This should definitely be our yardstick for anyone looking to representing NARALO.
While I don't disagree that engagement is a good, and possibly the best indicator of an At-Large Structure's realization of the commitments made upon application for that status, and a reasonable measure for individuals affiliated with ALSes as representatives of the NARALO, it is possible to directly test each of each ALSes several commitments, which is the subject of my two original notes on this subject, and a spreadsheet and explanatory notes I'll be sending to Staff and the NA-Discuss list later today, and a measure of ALS member activity could not individuals not affiliated with ALSes. Something along the lines of what you've proposed was presented at the Paris ICANN meeting, disclosing, if memory serves, that the recorded votes of the Business Constituency members of the GNSO Council and the recorded votes of the Internet Service Provider Constituency members of the GNSO Council corollated with the recorded votes of the Intellectual Property Constituency, and, that very few proposals leading to recorded votes on policy development originated from either of the Business or Internet Service Provider Constituency. My take-away at the time, and I'd been observing GNSO Council meetings in 2000-2005 and 2007-2009 (year of the Paris meeting), was that real numbers had been put to what was obvious -- the IPC had captured the BC and ISPC, leading to the polarization and gridlock later rationalized in the "reform" creating a Contracted Parties House and a Non-Contracted Parties House, with their polarization and gridlock formalized. I do wish to point out that putting "the ALS's under the microscope" is not something that only "we" can do. The records are public, anyone can study them, as I have, and as was done previously, see the Survey of 2010 as another approach to the available data. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Garth Bruen -
gbruen＠knujon.com
-
Glenn McKnight -
Joly MacFie