Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
Dominik and all, Yes I am aware that the issues I briefly outlined are subject matter for the GNSO Improvements. But also many of the issues I briefly outlined are central to the ALAC and the ALS'es including the NARALO. This is why I mentioned them on this thread. However thank you for again emphisizing that the issues I briefly mentioned are inclusive to the necessary improvements to the GNSO and have been sense it replaced the DNSO and were never implimented for a number of special interest objection reasons. As long as the GNSO councils members are predominantly controled by a few special interest constituencies, progress, solving of issues will either never occur, or be very problamatic and likely end up with compermises that don't solve those problems or are symptomatic at best. Such eventualities are inconsistant with good structure, and leadership. -----Original Message-----
From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> Sent: May 9, 2008 3:18 AM To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>, aheineman@ntia.doc.gov, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: At-Large <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, icann-list@sorehands.com, Brenbe@consumer.org, bfausett@internet.law.pro, carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm, john-ietf@jck.com, sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr Subject: RE: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
Jeff,
All the things you are mentioning is subject matter of the GNSO Improvements. That is what should be in focus in the first place.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:06 AM To: Dominik Filipp; Wendy Seltzer; aheineman@ntia.doc.gov; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: At-Large; icann-list@sorehands.com; Brenbe@consumer.org; bfausett@internet.law.pro; carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm; denise.michel@icann.org; john-ietf@jck.com; Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us; nick.ashton-hart@icann.org; twomey@icann.org; stacy.burnette@icann.org; sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
Dominik and all,
My and our members main problem with the ALAC, the ALS'es and the NARALO is a complete lack of transparency, openness, and significant propensity for censorship that has already been displayed.
The problems with the ALAC structure, the GNSO structure are nearly the same the ALAC and the GNSO are wanting or seemingly wanting to restrict based on various unreasonable and improper rule making, active participation and membership of all classes of stakeholders be they users or registrant-users of various sorts. This does not boad well for ICANN meeting it's mission requirements and significantly undermines the MOU. As such, there can be no policy decision that has any form of legitimate consensus, and certainly not measured consensus.
Of course all of the above has been, and remains the central and predominant question as to ICANN's legitimacy sense it's conception.
If indeed openness and transparency as well as accountability are ever to be achieved no stakeholder can be denied both a voice and a vote as to any policy that may be considered, nor can any stakeholder, most especially users be denied or moderated from access and intimidated or refused the ability to propose policy to any public resource including public forums such as these. Of course this would require that users regardless of status, have the predominant position on the ICANN board, the GSNO council, and within or as a part of any ALS, including of course the NARALO.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> Sent: May 8, 2008 8:38 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> Cc: At-Large <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
Evan,
If you or NARALO have any concerns or objections to the joint statement
worth mentioning, just enumerate them here. I think, at this stage, the
new structure needs not be entirely clarified. In my opinion, the important think to decide now is whether to fix the main model based on 3 or 4 groups. Notwithstanding the strange circumstances under which the statement was negotiated, issued and barely discussed, the joint statement based on 3 stakeholder groups seems to me quite reasonable.
Sure, there may be questionable/disputable details in the statement, but I think there will be an additional room to allow for a further refinement.
However, if your objections are of serious nature we can then update or
reconsider the statement.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:17 AM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
Hi Wendy,
While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected
cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling
explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN.
This issue was raised in the Summit WG confcall just concluded.
It was noted that -- the ICANN meeting following Cairo (spring 2009) is scheduled for Latin America, and not necessarily likely to be less expensive. -- The Cairo meeting is a 10th anniversary for ICANN and thus has special significance (and publicity potential) -- ICANN has not to date considered finances of accessibility when planning meeting locations; it should not penalize At-Large because of this.
With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC
and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed
on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both process and substance.
Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have
expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections.
To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm
not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint statement as it has currently been negotiated.
The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC"
review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN structure.
This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of ALAC in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to completely separate the two.
Can you clairify what they meant?
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican n .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican n.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
participants (1)
-
Jeffrey A. Williams