Mr. Robert Guerra wrote:

Thanks for this Nick.

Looks like someone will have to update the wiki to reflect the comments sent by ICANN legal.

Alternatively, we can push back on some of the issues. For example, I don't think the fact that ICANN hasn't assumed obligations to other RALOs means we should retreat from asking for them here. Rather, we should encourage the other RALOs to amend their MoUs if they would feel disadvantaged by the comparison. I would particularly push to clarify 4.6 - 4.8, where necessary, but not drop them or amend them so drastically as Staff recommends. (4.7 has already been clarified in the current draft.) [As of May 16: 4.6 Assuring the availability of any major document defined as contracts, relevant MOUs, policy briefings, staff reports and Strategic and Operational plan in English and French. 4.7 Performing periodic public impact analyses of existing policies and of proposed policy changes, sharing those with the RALO and general public, and taking account of the public impact in decisionmaking. 4.8 Responding to public comments, whether directed through the ALS-RALO-ALAC pyramid or submitted directly. ] --Wendy

Luc, have you time to do so. If not, let me know and I will try.

regards,

Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377

On 24-May-07, at 2:15 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

...

Dear North American community:

As promised, I've attached the review of the terms of the MoU from ICANN's perspective. I hope it is useful in your deliberations and if there are any questions please don't hesitate to ask.

-- Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart <NA-2007-SD-1 EN Staff Review of MoU Draft FINAL.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

Hi Luc, I'm OK with your suggestions. I believe that it's still an unwieldly mess but can work with is so long as it helps achieve consensus. If there are objections _despite_ your accommodations, then we'll know who wants to simply not let this happen. RALOs are advisory bodies which feed their input into a larger advisory body. Implicit in this is the understanding (which we as ALSs knew coming in) that ICANN is perfectly free to accept -- but not follow -- anything we reccommend. That's the role of advisors -- as opposed to directors. While I understand the frustration of those who have been around the process long enough to hate it, I have little patience for those who seek to change -- through the MOU -- the RALO into something it was not designed to be. Those who think the whole ALS/RALO concept is a sham may have a legitimate complaint, but this is the wrong forum in which to fight that particular battle. Having said that, I've quickly gained an appreciation of why many of these folks were ignored elsewhere. - Evan

Hi, I don't want to speak for Wendy but as I recall that is exactly why she was proposing a bicameral idea, where the accredited ALS's would act as the "Senate" and *all* unaffiliated individual users would all be in the "House." The House would elect 2 "speakers" (if memory serves...) who would take two seats in the Senate with the accredited ALS's. (I'm sorry if I have not gotten this right.) Would it really matter if every unaffiliated Internet user in NA joined the "House"--including lobbyists--etc? I don't know why--because in the end the House only has 2 votes in the Senate. On the other hand, is there anything to stop anyone --including lobbyists-- from joining every accredited ALS? It seems like that would be a better route. That way, they could certainly multiply their influence, and every ALS gets two votes. But I don't want to be accused of trying to hold anything up. JP unaffiliated Internet user At 9:27 AM -0400 5/28/07, Thompson, Darlene recently said:

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A12B.E653E425"

I agree.

All ALSs go through a process of "approval". What process do individuals have to go through to ensure that they are lobbyists or others that would be unattractive to our group. Unless we create some kind of umbrella group for the individuals that would act as a pseudo-ALS and they could police their own membership (this has been suggested before but I'm not sure by whom). We need some kind of wording clarifying what we would like this to look like.

D

whew< Makes MUCH more sense to me...

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 ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mr. Robert Guerra Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 12:37 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Staff Review of Draft MoU Terms Jean: using parliamentary analogies might make things too complex. a few comments: * The reference to "senate" in Canada has a different connotation, as that body here is appointed and not elected by the public. So for me, a senate would not be the most representative.. * A question .. Would the "senate" be able to act alone - or as is the case normally, require that all actions and initiatives also be endorsed by the other chamber (the house) before the are approved. With this approach, there could be stalemates is often happens (both in Canada, US, and elsewhere). Let me suggest a slight variant that, i hope could be adopted... NA "unaffiliated" users be created as a "virtual" umbrella organization , one that has ALS status as well as a set of chairs that oversee admin and other requests. There would be two chairs, who would be elected by the NA "unaffiliated" to sit in the NA regional assembly. - Individual who is interested in joining NA at large would have thus two options: - (1) Can join an organization that has been ALS certified. The organization in question has their own procedures as to how to join, etc.. - (2) instead of joining an affiliated organization, and individual can contact the NA "unaffiliated" ALS. At this point , there are two options: 1. Have a set of criteria on who can/can not joing the virtual group. If criteria exist: - Application (that would have to be drafted) would be reviewed by NA "unaffiliated" ALS chairs (s), who would process and/or approve the application request. If approved the regional RALO, ALAC and ICANN staff would be notified that individual is now a full member of the NA "unaffiliated" ALS The ALS chairs and the virtual NA "unaffiliated" group would of course be able to change and/or revise their working methods as they see fit. What I am suggesting is a possible first version - that would be subject to review in a year. With criteria, the virtual group would be less vulnerable to capture by interested parties 2. Establish no criteria, let anyone join. - Anyone could join the virtual group. - the group would run the risk of being capture by interested parties having been involved in international processes with non profits (ie. civil society), I would much prefer option 1. Though it creates a bit of structure, it is light and would make it harder for the group to be captured. those are my comments. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 28-May-07, at 10:50 AM, Jean Armour Polly wrote: Hi, I don't want to speak for Wendy but as I recall that is exactly why she was proposing a bicameral idea, where the accredited ALS's would act as the "Senate" and *all* unaffiliated individual users would all be in the "House." The House would elect 2 "speakers" (if memory serves...) who would take two seats in the Senate with the accredited ALS's. (I'm sorry if I have not gotten this right.) Would it really matter if every unaffiliated Internet user in NA joined the "House"--including lobbyists--etc? I don't know why--because in the end the House only has 2 votes in the Senate. On the other hand, is there anything to stop anyone --including lobbyists-- from joining every accredited ALS? It seems like that would be a better route. That way, they could certainly multiply their influence, and every ALS gets two votes. But I don't want to be accused of trying to hold anything up. JP unaffiliated Internet user At 9:27 AM -0400 5/28/07, Thompson, Darlene recently said: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A12B.E653E425" I agree. All ALSs go through a process of "approval". What process do individuals have to go through to ensure that they are lobbyists or others that would be unattractive to our group. Unless we create some kind of umbrella group for the individuals that would act as a pseudo-ALS and they could police their own membership (this has been suggested before but I'm not sure by whom). We need some kind of wording clarifying what we would like this to look like. D _______________________________________________ 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

Jean: On 28-May-07, at 4:09 PM, Jean Armour Polly wrote:

...

- Individual who is interested in joining NA at large would have thus two options:

- (1) Can join an organization that has been ALS certified. The organization in question has their own procedures as to how to join, etc..

- (2) instead of joining an affiliated organization, and individual can contact the NA "unaffiliated" ALS.

Actually, there are 3 options-- a minimum of two people can join together and can create another ALS-applicant if they want. ALAC isn't getting out of the ALS-blessing business, and I don't believe it has ever happened that an ALS with individual members (note plural) has been turned down.

you are right. submitting a ALS application is always an option. I mistakenly forgot to include it

...

At this point , there are two options:

1. Have a set of criteria on who can/can not joing the virtual group. If criteria exist:

- Application (that would have to be drafted) would be reviewed by NA "unaffiliated" ALS chairs (s), who would process and/or approve the application request.

If approved the regional RALO, ALAC and ICANN staff would be notified that individual is now a full member of the NA "unaffiliated" ALS

The ALS chairs and the virtual NA "unaffiliated" group would of course be able to change and/or revise their working methods as they see fit. What I am suggesting is a possible first version - that would be subject to review in a year.

With criteria, the virtual group would be less vulnerable to capture by interested parties

Interested parties I'm quite sure would form their own ALS. I am surprised ALAC hasn't seen an application yet from, say, Focus on the Family-- since they were so vocal about the .xxx TLD. Maybe they just don't realize yet that they could be an ALS and get 2 votes in the NARALO.

An indicator of success will be when such organizations identify ALS's as a point of entry. that hasn't happened yet, however it may in the future. getting back to the issue at hand , that being the proposal to create a virtual "unaffiliated" ALS for the NA region. is the proposal I mentioned earlier and clarified above seem ok? Wendy - have you any reservations and/or things to add? regards Robert

I'm not sure that I am getting what Wendy is saying exactly right but if what she is suggesting is that the non-affiliated users have equal voting as all of the ALSs combined, then I would NEVER agree to that. What Jean was outlining seems much more reasonable. Basically, an umbrella ALS for unaffiliated users that can make up its own rules (or lack thereof) for entry and have two votes along-side the other ALSs. This could actually encourage more ALS formation as individuals might clump together along the lines of common interest groups and form their own ALSs in time. Darlene 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: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 6:41 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Staff Review of Draft MoU Terms Mr. Robert Guerra wrote:

Jean:

On 28-May-07, at 4:09 PM, Jean Armour Polly wrote:

...

...

- Individual who is interested in joining NA at large would have thus two options:

- (1) Can join an organization that has been ALS certified. The organization in question has their own procedures as to how to join, etc..

- (2) instead of joining an affiliated organization, and individual can contact the NA "unaffiliated" ALS.

Actually, there are 3 options-- a minimum of two people can join together and can create another ALS-applicant if they want. ALAC isn't getting out of the ALS-blessing business, and I don't believe it has ever happened that an ALS with individual members (note plural) has been turned down.

you are right. submitting a ALS application is always an option. I mistakenly forgot to include it

...

...

At this point , there are two options:

1. Have a set of criteria on who can/can not joing the virtual group. If criteria exist:

- Application (that would have to be drafted) would be reviewed by NA "unaffiliated" ALS chairs (s), who would process and/or approve the application request.

If approved the regional RALO, ALAC and ICANN staff would be notified that individual is now a full member of the NA "unaffiliated" ALS

The ALS chairs and the virtual NA "unaffiliated" group would of course be able to change and/or revise their working methods as they see fit. What I am suggesting is a possible first version - that would be subject to review in a year.

With criteria, the virtual group would be less vulnerable to capture by interested parties

Interested parties I'm quite sure would form their own ALS. I am surprised ALAC hasn't seen an application yet from, say, Focus on the Family-- since they were so vocal about the .xxx TLD. Maybe they just don't realize yet that they could be an ALS and get 2 votes in the NARALO.

An indicator of success will be when such organizations identify ALS's as a point of entry. that hasn't happened yet, however it may in the future.

getting back to the issue at hand , that being the proposal to create a virtual "unaffiliated" ALS for the NA region. is the proposal I mentioned earlier and clarified above seem ok? Wendy - have you any reservations and/or things to add?

I much prefer the option where both means of participation are placed on equal footing, as two parallel houses. Then, we have the opportunity to compare and contrast the kinds of input received through an organizationally-structured participation and through direct participation. I do not see that there need to be heavyweight certifications for individual participation. Let's wait and see -- if it becomes apparent that people are trying to capture the RALO, then we'll deal with the problem, but we shouldn't let the mere possibility derail a more open participatory structure. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.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

Thompson, Darlene wrote:

I'm not sure that I am getting what Wendy is saying exactly right but if what she is suggesting is that the non-affiliated users have equal voting as all of the ALSs combined, then I would NEVER agree to that.

What Jean was outlining seems much more reasonable. Basically, an umbrella ALS for unaffiliated users that can make up its own rules (or lack thereof) for entry and have two votes along-side the other ALSs. This could actually encourage more ALS formation as individuals might clump together along the lines of common interest groups and form their own ALSs in time.

I agree with this completely. Arguably, one of the mandates of the "umbrella ALS" is to help match people with similar interests, and help them form ALSs. This seems a very fair approach that doesn't require a substantial chance to the intended infrastructure. - Evan

Wendy: Thanks for further describing your "bicameral proposal". Personally, though perhaps adding some duplication and level of bureaucracy, I think the creation of a dual chamber mechanism of representation has merit. It just needs to be detailed a bit further. Examples that you could provide on how proposals and/or nominations would get approved would help illustrate the process and give us a better idea of how to best implement it in the NA RALO documents being drafted. I have a couple of quick comments/questions that I hope can serve to clarify people's understanding of your proposal, how it could work - and how it could be implemented ... - I would prefer that the chamber names be changed from house/senate to something else that is more international and less culturally specific for the USA. Say affiliate and non-affiliated chambers..? - am I correct in assuming that all proposals and/or motions need to be approved TWICE , once by each chamber. As the representatives are pretty well the same ones on both bodies, isn't it bit of duplication? - As is the case often with a dual representative chamber: a. Legislative functions- should any specific authority be given to one body vs another. For example, should the upper (ALS only) body be given the exclusive authority to vet applicant ALS's or vet ALAC candidates b. in the case of a stalemate between the chambers, is there any process that should be defined in advance on how to solve the issue? Should a role (if any) be given to ICANN or the ALAC to resolve disputes? for example, in Canada the governor general (as does the queen in the UK) does have the discretionary power to dissolve parliament and/or call another party to form the govt . Should such powers be given to either the at large committee or ICANN's board? Ref: Parliament of Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada - In terms of procedure(s) 1. Term limits - ? how long should the term of the reps serving in the NA ALS parliament be? 2. Is there a minimum # of times the houses should meet in a given year? Should a mechanism be contemplated to invoke should such requirement not be meet? 3. Should a quorum be specified for the chambers? if so, what #'s are ideal? In summary, as I mentioned at the start - i think your proposal has merit. it is just working out the details that is a bit sticky. I hope that with your collaboration and discussion among the others on this list we can endorse it, and incorporate it in the documents being drafted. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 29-May-07, at 6:16 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

Jean Armour Polly wrote:

...

Hi, I don't want to speak for Wendy but as I recall that is exactly why she was proposing a bicameral idea, where the accredited ALS's would act as the "Senate" and *all* unaffiliated individual users would all be in the "House." The House would elect 2 "speakers" (if memory serves...) who would take two seats in the Senate with the accredited ALS's. (I'm sorry if I have not gotten this right.)

Pretty close. I was suggesting that two bodies be jointly responsible for the RALO: Everyone could join the "individuals' house," individual members of ALSs participating with equal footing with unaffiliated individuals. THe "organizational house" would have the 2 reps of each ALS, plus 2 from the non-affiliated individuals. Like the U.S. House and Senate, where individuals are represented through two different means (2 reps per state in the Senate, population-based representation in the House), the two chambers might have different ways of gathering Internet users' input, both of which would be valuable to the process.

Lobbyists are individuals too, and the aim in the "individuals' house" would be to get them participating alongside unaffiliated individuals. There are many forms of capture, and offering two channels for involvement seems to me more likely to stave off more of them.

--Wendy

...

Would it really matter if every unaffiliated Internet user in NA joined the "House"--including lobbyists--etc? I don't know why--because in the end the House only has 2 votes in the Senate. On the other hand, is there anything to stop anyone --including lobbyists-- from joining every accredited ALS? It seems like that would be a better route. That way, they could certainly multiply their influence, and every ALS gets two votes. But I don't want to be accused of trying to hold anything up. JP unaffiliated Internet user

At 9:27 AM -0400 5/28/07, Thompson, Darlene recently said:

...

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A12B.E653E425"

I agree.

All ALSs go through a process of "approval". What process do individuals have to go through to ensure that they are lobbyists or others that would be unattractive to our group. Unless we create some kind of umbrella group for the individuals that would act as a pseudo-ALS and they could police their own membership (this has been suggested before but I'm not sure by whom). We need some kind of wording clarifying what we would like this to look like.

D

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

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.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 Danny, As I am not as in-tune to the whole RegisterFly debacle like you are, I'm wondering what your "take" on this move is? D 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: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:37 AM To: NA Discuss Cc: ga@gnso.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] GoDaddy.com Reaches Agreement to Help RegisterFlyCustomers http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news _view&newsId=20070529005374&newsLang=en ________________________________________________________________________ ____________Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ 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

I just wanted to ask some questions about this process as it just seems so foreign to me - and I am asking them in the utmost respect to all involved: 1. Why would we want to use something this complex when we could use a much simpler solution? 2. What purpose would this "more complex" solution serve OVER the simpler way of doing it? (as in, what are the benefits) 3. Since we only seem to have two individual users right now, would it make sense to use the simpler way now and change later? If we do that, do we have the ability to change things later down the road? Thank you for your forbearance. D 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: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:47 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Staff Review of Draft MoU Terms Mr. Robert Guerra wrote:

Wendy:

Thanks for further describing your "bicameral proposal".

Thanks for the questions. I've suggested some possibilities below.

Personally, though perhaps adding some duplication and level of bureaucracy, I think the creation of a dual chamber mechanism of representation has merit. It just needs to be detailed a bit further.

Examples that you could provide on how proposals and/or nominations would get approved would help illustrate the process and give us a better idea of how to best implement it in the NA RALO documents being drafted.

I have a couple of quick comments/questions that I hope can serve to

clarify people's understanding of your proposal, how it could work -

and how it could be implemented ...

- I would prefer that the chamber names be changed from house/senate to something else that is more international and less culturally specific for the USA. Say affiliate and non-affiliated chambers..?

I was calling them "individuals' house" and "organizational house," since even affiliated individuals could join the non-organizational house. "Chamber" works fine too.

- am I correct in assuming that all proposals and/or motions need to

be approved TWICE , once by each chamber. As the representatives are pretty well the same ones on both bodies, isn't it bit of duplication?

I don't see there being a whole lot of issues that require NARALO to speak as NARALO. Rather, there will be some times when North Americans want to say something to ICANN and some times when ICANN wants to ask North Americans (and those in other regions) questions. Either or both chambers could participate in these discussions and engage individuals to participate.

- As is the case often with a dual representative chamber:

a. Legislative functions- should any specific authority be given to one body vs another. For example, should the upper (ALS only) body be given the exclusive authority to vet applicant ALS's or vet ALAC candidates

I'd suggest each chamber selects one ALAC member. Either could put forward policy documents or proposals to ICANN. Consensus of both would be required only to speak for the NARALO.

b. in the case of a stalemate between the chambers, is there any process that should be defined in advance on how to solve the issue? Should a role (if any) be given to ICANN or the ALAC to resolve disputes?

Not ICANN or ALAC; I don't think we want top-down intervention. If things turn out to be vote-driven rather than consensus, we could find vote threshholds or let the chair or organizational house break ties.

for example, in Canada the governor general (as does the queen in the

UK) does have the discretionary power to dissolve parliament and/or call another party to form the govt . Should such powers be given to either the at large committee or ICANN's board?

Ref: Parliament of Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada

- In terms of procedure(s)

1. Term limits - ? how long should the term of the reps serving in the NA ALS parliament be?

Isn't that a question in any model? I envision direct participation in the individual chamber, with no term limit besides exhaustion.

2. Is there a minimum # of times the houses should meet in a given year? Should a mechanism be contemplated to invoke should such requirement not be meet?

No.

3. Should a quorum be specified for the chambers? if so, what #'s are ideal?

Sure, perhaps set quorum at 2/3 of registered orgs, 2/3 of the registered individuals. Votes, if necessary, would be majority. Thanks, --Wendy

In summary, as I mentioned at the start - i think your proposal has merit. it is just working out the details that is a bit sticky. I hope that with your collaboration and discussion among the others on this list we can endorse it, and incorporate it in the documents being drafted.

regards,

Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377

On 29-May-07, at 6:16 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

...

Jean Armour Polly wrote:

...

Hi, I don't want to speak for Wendy but as I recall that is exactly why she was proposing a bicameral idea, where the accredited ALS's would act as the "Senate" and *all* unaffiliated individual users would all be in the "House." The House would elect 2 "speakers" (if memory serves...) who would take two seats in the Senate with the accredited ALS's. (I'm sorry if I have not gotten this right.) Pretty close. I was suggesting that two bodies be jointly

responsible

...

for the RALO: Everyone could join the "individuals' house," individual members of ALSs participating with equal footing with unaffiliated individuals. THe "organizational house" would have the 2 reps of each ALS, plus 2 from the non-affiliated individuals. Like the U.S. House and Senate, where individuals are represented through two different means (2 reps per state in the Senate, population-based representation in the House), the two chambers might have different ways of gathering Internet users' input, both of which would be valuable to the process.

Lobbyists are individuals too, and the aim in the "individuals' house" would be to get them participating alongside unaffiliated individuals. There are many forms of capture, and offering two channels for involvement seems to me more likely to stave off more of them.

--Wendy

...

Would it really matter if every unaffiliated Internet user in NA joined the "House"--including lobbyists--etc? I don't know why--because in the end the House only has 2 votes in the Senate. On the other hand, is there anything to stop anyone --including lobbyists-- from joining every accredited ALS? It seems like that would be a better route. That way, they could certainly multiply their influence, and every ALS gets two votes. But I don't want to be accused of trying to hold anything up. JP unaffiliated Internet user

At 9:27 AM -0400 5/28/07, Thompson, Darlene recently said:

...

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A12B.E653E425"

I agree.

All ALSs go through a process of "approval". What process do individuals have to go through to ensure that they are lobbyists or others that would be unattractive to our group. Unless we create some kind of umbrella group for the individuals that would act as a pseudo-ALS and they could police their own membership (this has been suggested before but I'm not sure by whom). We need some kind of wording clarifying what we would like this to look like.

D

...

...

---

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.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

I'm with Darlene on this. The ideas seem to have merit, but surely we can take our time to look into this and adjust things later without holding things up now. Gareth On May 29, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:

I just wanted to ask some questions about this process as it just seems so foreign to me - and I am asking them in the utmost respect to all involved:

1. Why would we want to use something this complex when we could use a much simpler solution?

2. What purpose would this "more complex" solution serve OVER the simpler way of doing it? (as in, what are the benefits)

3. Since we only seem to have two individual users right now, would it make sense to use the simpler way now and change later? If we do that, do we have the ability to change things later down the road?

Thank you for your forbearance.

D

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: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:47 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Staff Review of Draft MoU Terms

Mr. Robert Guerra wrote:

...

Wendy:

Thanks for further describing your "bicameral proposal".

Thanks for the questions. I've suggested some possibilities below.

...

Personally, though perhaps adding some duplication and level of bureaucracy, I think the creation of a dual chamber mechanism of representation has merit. It just needs to be detailed a bit further.

Examples that you could provide on how proposals and/or nominations would get approved would help illustrate the process and give us a better idea of how to best implement it in the NA RALO documents being drafted.

I have a couple of quick comments/questions that I hope can serve to

...

clarify people's understanding of your proposal, how it could work -

...

and how it could be implemented ...

- I would prefer that the chamber names be changed from house/senate to something else that is more international and less culturally specific for the USA. Say affiliate and non-affiliated chambers..?

I was calling them "individuals' house" and "organizational house," since even affiliated individuals could join the non-organizational house. "Chamber" works fine too.

...

- am I correct in assuming that all proposals and/or motions need to

...

be approved TWICE , once by each chamber. As the representatives are pretty well the same ones on both bodies, isn't it bit of duplication?

I don't see there being a whole lot of issues that require NARALO to speak as NARALO. Rather, there will be some times when North Americans want to say something to ICANN and some times when ICANN wants to ask North Americans (and those in other regions) questions. Either or both chambers could participate in these discussions and engage individuals to participate.

...

- As is the case often with a dual representative chamber:

a. Legislative functions- should any specific authority be given to one body vs another. For example, should the upper (ALS only) body be given the exclusive authority to vet applicant ALS's or vet ALAC candidates

I'd suggest each chamber selects one ALAC member. Either could put forward policy documents or proposals to ICANN. Consensus of both would be required only to speak for the NARALO.

...

b. in the case of a stalemate between the chambers, is there any process that should be defined in advance on how to solve the issue? Should a role (if any) be given to ICANN or the ALAC to resolve disputes?

Not ICANN or ALAC; I don't think we want top-down intervention. If things turn out to be vote-driven rather than consensus, we could find vote threshholds or let the chair or organizational house break ties.

...

for example, in Canada the governor general (as does the queen in the

...

UK) does have the discretionary power to dissolve parliament and/or call another party to form the govt . Should such powers be given to either the at large committee or ICANN's board?

Ref: Parliament of Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada

- In terms of procedure(s)

1. Term limits - ? how long should the term of the reps serving in the NA ALS parliament be?

Isn't that a question in any model? I envision direct participation in the individual chamber, with no term limit besides exhaustion.

...

2. Is there a minimum # of times the houses should meet in a given year? Should a mechanism be contemplated to invoke should such requirement not be meet?

No.

...

3. Should a quorum be specified for the chambers? if so, what #'s are ideal?

Sure, perhaps set quorum at 2/3 of registered orgs, 2/3 of the registered individuals. Votes, if necessary, would be majority.

Thanks, --Wendy

...

In summary, as I mentioned at the start - i think your proposal has merit. it is just working out the details that is a bit sticky. I hope that with your collaboration and discussion among the others on this list we can endorse it, and incorporate it in the documents being drafted.

regards,

Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377

On 29-May-07, at 6:16 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

...

Jean Armour Polly wrote:

...

Hi, I don't want to speak for Wendy but as I recall that is exactly why she was proposing a bicameral idea, where the accredited ALS's would act as the "Senate" and *all* unaffiliated individual users would all be in the "House." The House would elect 2 "speakers" (if memory serves...) who would take two seats in the Senate with the accredited ALS's. (I'm sorry if I have not gotten this right.) Pretty close. I was suggesting that two bodies be jointly

responsible

...

...

for the RALO: Everyone could join the "individuals' house," individual members of ALSs participating with equal footing with unaffiliated individuals. THe "organizational house" would have the 2 reps of each ALS, plus 2 from the non-affiliated individuals. Like the U.S. House and Senate, where individuals are represented through two different means (2 reps per state in the Senate, population-based representation in the House), the two chambers might have different ways of gathering Internet users' input, both of which would be valuable to the process.

Lobbyists are individuals too, and the aim in the "individuals' house" would be to get them participating alongside unaffiliated individuals. There are many forms of capture, and offering two channels for involvement seems to me more likely to stave off more of them.

--Wendy

...

Would it really matter if every unaffiliated Internet user in NA joined the "House"--including lobbyists--etc? I don't know why--because in the end the House only has 2 votes in the Senate. On the other hand, is there anything to stop anyone --including lobbyists-- from joining every accredited ALS? It seems like that would be a better route. That way, they could certainly multiply their influence, and every ALS gets two votes. But I don't want to be accused of trying to hold anything up. JP unaffiliated Internet user

At 9:27 AM -0400 5/28/07, Thompson, Darlene recently said:

...

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A12B.E653E425"

I agree.

All ALSs go through a process of "approval". What process do individuals have to go through to ensure that they are lobbyists or others that would be unattractive to our group. Unless we create some kind of umbrella group for the individuals that would act as a pseudo-ALS and they could police their own membership (this has been suggested before but I'm not sure by whom). We need some kind of wording clarifying what we would like this to look like.

D

---

...

...

...

---

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.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

Excellent. I am in complete agreement with this. Darlene 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: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:32 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] Involving Individuals (was "Staff Review...") In reading and thinking through the various posts, I see widespread agreement that the NARALO should allow individuals to participate, and, in fact, the current draft documents allow for participation in mailing lists, discussions and in person meetings. I also see growing interest in providing individuals with a role in voting and, perhaps, representation on the ALAC. At the same time, however, my read is that a substantial majority of those participating in this discussion do not wish to slow the course of our work building a RALO or electing ALAC representatives to change the structure now. To that end, my suggestion is that we complete the RALO formation and MOU with ICANN, on such terms as we can agree. (Personally, Luc's suggested revisions seemed good to me.) When we elect ALAC representatives, however, we will elect one for a two-year term and one for a one-year term. Why don't we leave open the possibility that when the one-year term expires at the end of the ICANN annual meeting in 2008, the successor will be elected by individuals? I say "leave open the possibility" because for election by individuals to become an actuality, I think at least three things would need to happen by 1 May 2008: (1) we need to arrive at a definition for "Individual At Large User from North America" (e.g. Citizen of a country in ICANN's North American Region, at least 18 years of age, with sufficient access to the Internet to participate in ICANN's policy discussions....I'm making this up without much thought -- it's just a straw man for us to knock around.) (2) we need to have a way of registering and verifying the identity of each "Individual At Large User from North America" (p.s. I actually don't think this is a hard problem to solve. It could be as simple as mail, fax or email an application, with a photocopy of a government-issued picture ID, to the Chair of the GA, with a copy to Nick.) (3) we need an adequate "triggering threshold" of "Individual At Large Users from North America" to make this count. By this I mean that "individual" representation, on an equal basis with the organizations, has no legitimacy if the group of individuals is just me, you, Wendy, Jean and Danny. We need some number of individuals -- 500?, 1000? 5000? or pick your favorite straw man number -- to start us off. Again, I don't think any of these are hard targets to reach. Whatever the number, we're just a slashdot post or an EFF press release away from reaching it. Is this a reasonable way forward? Bret _______________________________________________ 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