Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus. Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night. If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes. - Evan --------------------------------------------------------- NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community. The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to. The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance. Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak. Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional. What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation. For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency. This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.
I like it. Can we add anything about how this report went right against the NomCom review that recommended removing NomCom from ALAC? D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 11:57 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus. Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night. If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes. - Evan --------------------------------------------------------- NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community. The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to. The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance. Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak. Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional. What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation. For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency. This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I might try a different approach. Rather than tearing down the Westlake report, why don't we list those principals we believe most important for the ALAC going forward? Remember, this is a review of the ALAC, not a review of the Westlake report, so we should talk about how we want the ALAC to evolve. What do we want for staff support, funding, representation on the Board and SOs? Bret
Bret Fausett wrote:
I might try a different approach. Rather than tearing down the Westlake report, why don't we list those principals we believe most important for the ALAC going forward? Remember, this is a review of the ALAC, not a review of the Westlake report, so we should talk about how we want the ALAC to evolve. What do we want for staff support, funding, representation on the Board and SOs?
One does not negate the other. Right now that -- the report they have paid for -- exists, is being discussed next week, and does damage to our goals. They need to know that everything from the selection process to the resulting conclusions were flawed; else how can they learn from their mistakes? Indicating to ALAC that we expect them to oppose the Westlake document will not preclude -- in fact it requires -- us to produce an alternative. If we're going to shoot the Westlake one down we certainly do want to propose an alternative, and I would like us to engage in that task. But that will take time. Right now we need a message for next week's meeting at which the Westlake review is being discussed on multiple occasions. - Evan
Evan: a couple of quick comments : - I would focus comments just on the report, and be softer on the language related to the selection of the consultant. - agree with evan's comments - though there is a larger - political issue worth considering. that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could endanger the summit being ok'd - a politically saavy person would not ouright reject the summit proposal - but, instead place poisoned recommendations in the alac review. the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff and board to rethink support for the summit at this time. After all - our input - politics and games - should be expected. That is the political reality that is ICANN. the at-large community needs to think strategically and have a - strong voice to react to the draft. otherwise, it could be used to divide us. - Should we have strong reaction to the report (and i'm supportive of that), it would be preferable if we could get other at-large regions to support us. That way, it wouldn't be jsut NA - but broader. - specifics : we should also include specific changes, that we'd like to see. that's all for now. let's continue this discussion face to face - and virtually - as much of NA ralo can't make to paris. Robert On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus.
Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night.
If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes.
- Evan
---------------------------------------------------------
NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community.
The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to.
The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance.
Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak.
Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional.
What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation.
For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency.
This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could endanger the summit being ok'd
Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be punished? If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted.
a politically saavy person would not outright reject the summit proposal
Sure, politically savvy person should take care about his/her political career in the first place, and as such it may happen that sometimes regardless of the actual needs of the community he/she advocates. That is the political reality that is ICANN. No offense, Robert. Just thinking aloud. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 12:15 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review Evan: a couple of quick comments : - I would focus comments just on the report, and be softer on the language related to the selection of the consultant. - agree with evan's comments - though there is a larger - political issue worth considering. that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could endanger the summit being ok'd - a politically saavy person would not ouright reject the summit proposal - but, instead place poisoned recommendations in the alac review. the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff and board to rethink support for the summit at this time. After all - our input - politics and games - should be expected. That is the political reality that is ICANN. the at-large community needs to think strategically and have a - strong voice to react to the draft. otherwise, it could be used to divide us. - Should we have strong reaction to the report (and i'm supportive of that), it would be preferable if we could get other at-large regions to support us. That way, it wouldn't be jsut NA - but broader. - specifics : we should also include specific changes, that we'd like to see. that's all for now. let's continue this discussion face to face - and virtually - as much of NA ralo can't make to paris. Robert On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach
consensus.
Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night.
If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes.
- Evan
---------------------------------------------------------
NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community.
The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to.
The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership
on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance.
Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs
of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak.
Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional.
What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have
neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation.
For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review,
as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency.
This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Dominik Filipp wrote:
that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could endanger the summit being ok'd
Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be punished? If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted.
I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that most of the people here are acting this way. Some of the stronger supporters of strong NARALO naction on this issue have also been key organizers of the Summit. IMO the Summit is a *necessary* activity of ICANN if it is to prove to outsiders (and especially the US government) that it at least is minimally serious about multi stakeholder involvement. If they can the Summit because of improper comments by some individuals, well than that doubly proves that ICANN does not really care about having an educated and active At-Large. I prefer to stay optimistic until proven otherwise. - Evan
Evan, I am not suggesting anything about At-Large itself let alone the importance of the summit. The only thing I am sugesting is a view how the summit organizers who could 'endager' the summit are looking at At-Large. That is what I have understood from the remark. To clarify my point further I am appending another remark from the post "the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff and board to rethink support for the summit at this time" I am optimistic :-) Dominik -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:48 AM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: Robert Guerra; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review Dominik Filipp wrote:
that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could endanger the summit being ok'd
Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be punished? If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted.
I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that most of the people here are acting this way. Some of the stronger supporters of strong NARALO naction on this issue have also been key organizers of the Summit. IMO the Summit is a *necessary* activity of ICANN if it is to prove to outsiders (and especially the US government) that it at least is minimally serious about multi stakeholder involvement. If they can the Summit because of improper comments by some individuals, well than that doubly proves that ICANN does not really care about having an educated and active At-Large. I prefer to stay optimistic until proven otherwise. - Evan
Hello again, Thanks to everyone for their comments. What I have gathered so far is that: - The concerns about Westlake's appointments, which genuine and possibly very serious, should not form a significant part of this statement (if indeed, any statement is made). This is certainly something to bring up when talking to the governance committee that handled the procurement of the consultant, however stressing it in this statement detracts from the more fundamental problems that exist in the review report itself. - People are generally in agreement with the comments in the statement, however there are two concerns: 1) it's too negative and does not provide constructive alternatives 2) a strong negative statement may anger people and jeopardize Board support of the Summit. My answer to these is to note the intended audience of this statement, which is ALAC and not the rest of ICANN. Its purpose of this statement is to prod ALAC, and its other regions, into action. If ALAC does not act NARALO can choose to do so, but the result if that happens will be certainly worded differently as it would be targeted at a different audience. It would also take place after the Paris meeting, and if the ICANN Board approves the Summit this week then the two issues cannot be linked. I can change wording so to indicate that work on constructive and creative recommendations must eventually accompany a rejection of the Westlake recommendations. Furthermore, the Summit is a very different issue from the ALAC review; if the Board links the two, that will ICANN's loss. With all this in mind, I have attempted a second draft: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community. We believe that the ALAC Review process has been flawed from the very start of its process, and has produced recommendations which serve neither the multi-stakeholder goals of ICANN nor the needs of its at-large community. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to. The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance. Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak, opposing the recommendations of the Nominating Committee's own review. In rejecting the consultants' report, ALAC must offer creative and viable alternative recommendations which would increase accountability. while enhancing the bi-directional communications required between ICANN and its global grassroots communuty. What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation. For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency. This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.
My thanks goes to NARALO for the statement to reject the Westlake's ALAC Review as a whole. A right step towards right direction. Dominik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would be inclined to cut the attack on the reviewers' selection and focus on substantive disagreements and their failure to include all the options presented to them. I know I recommended reverting to general at-large elections for board members, scrapping the intermediary of the ALS-RALO-ALAC structure, and I'm disturbed that they didn't even mention that among the alternatives. I would really have liked to see a thoughtful comparison to justify the heavyweight structures that require intensive participation, over lightweight voting and delegation to empowered representatives, but see none. My chief concern with the ALAC has always been that it provides no reason fo rhte ordinary Internet user to get involved, despite the range of places where ICANN's mandate affects the Internet user. I don't think users should have to be intensively involved in issues of peripheral importance, but that shouldn't deprive them of a way to voice hteir opinions. Votes have always seemed to me like the natural way to bridge collective action problems, to express shallow but widely shared opinion. I understand that's not what ICANN chose, but it still seems flawed to ignore that baseline. - --Wendy Evan Leibovitch wrote:
NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus.
Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night.
If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes.
- Evan
---------------------------------------------------------
NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community.
The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to.
The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance.
Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak.
Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional.
What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation.
For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency.
This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
- -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFIXNVauuui10VsrVERAnnQAJdlY3GOxNSNu7uBorGAAQxJwd7tAJ9ItagS SnRyw5lqf7A80bNeNj6DFQ== =1ErH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wendy and all, I am very much inclined to agree with your conclusions and observations stated below. I have been getting allot of feedback from our members that express similar views and observations that have reviewed the Draft statement. Additionally I personally found the Draft statement not to come even close to reflecting what has already been discussed vis a vi the NARALO and leaves out largely broad user participation, input, issues, and concerns that directly effect them and that they are aware of or have already been effected by with no real recourse to address such issues. It appears to me that the ALAC seems to be largely ignoring those concerns and issues and at times even chastising those that bring them to the attention of either ICANN, the GNSO, or the ALAC. Such does not lend itself to properly or even at all, addressing such issues and concerns which ICANN can have either an effect on or directly address. Wendy Seltzer wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I would be inclined to cut the attack on the reviewers' selection and focus on substantive disagreements and their failure to include all the options presented to them.
I know I recommended reverting to general at-large elections for board members, scrapping the intermediary of the ALS-RALO-ALAC structure, and I'm disturbed that they didn't even mention that among the alternatives. I would really have liked to see a thoughtful comparison to justify the heavyweight structures that require intensive participation, over lightweight voting and delegation to empowered representatives, but see none.
My chief concern with the ALAC has always been that it provides no reason fo rhte ordinary Internet user to get involved, despite the range of places where ICANN's mandate affects the Internet user. I don't think users should have to be intensively involved in issues of peripheral importance, but that shouldn't deprive them of a way to voice hteir opinions. Votes have always seemed to me like the natural way to bridge collective action problems, to express shallow but widely shared opinion. I understand that's not what ICANN chose, but it still seems flawed to ignore that baseline.
- --Wendy
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus.
Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night.
If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes.
- Evan
---------------------------------------------------------
NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community.
The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to.
The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance.
Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak.
Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional.
What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation.
For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency.
This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
- -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFIXNVauuui10VsrVERAnnQAJdlY3GOxNSNu7uBorGAAQxJwd7tAJ9ItagS SnRyw5lqf7A80bNeNj6DFQ== =1ErH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
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
Wendy,
I understand that's not what ICANN chose, but it still seems flawed to ignore that baseline.
Not ICANN but BoD chose. BoD is not ICANN. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 12:18 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would be inclined to cut the attack on the reviewers' selection and focus on substantive disagreements and their failure to include all the options presented to them. I know I recommended reverting to general at-large elections for board members, scrapping the intermediary of the ALS-RALO-ALAC structure, and I'm disturbed that they didn't even mention that among the alternatives. I would really have liked to see a thoughtful comparison to justify the heavyweight structures that require intensive participation, over lightweight voting and delegation to empowered representatives, but see none. My chief concern with the ALAC has always been that it provides no reason fo rhte ordinary Internet user to get involved, despite the range of places where ICANN's mandate affects the Internet user. I don't think users should have to be intensively involved in issues of peripheral importance, but that shouldn't deprive them of a way to voice hteir opinions. Votes have always seemed to me like the natural way to bridge collective action problems, to express shallow but widely shared opinion. I understand that's not what ICANN chose, but it still seems flawed to ignore that baseline. - --Wendy Evan Leibovitch wrote:
NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus.
Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night.
If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes.
- Evan
---------------------------------------------------------
NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community.
The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to.
The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership
on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance.
Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs
of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak.
Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional.
What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have
neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation.
For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review,
as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency.
This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis ts.icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
- -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFIXNVauuui10VsrVERAnnQAJdlY3GOxNSNu7uBorGAAQxJwd7tAJ9ItagS SnRyw5lqf7A80bNeNj6DFQ== =1ErH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I agree with Wendy, that the paragraph on the selection of reviewers seems somewhat irrelevant at this point. All the rest of the statement, I agree with. I wonder if there is anything to gain (or lose) by waiting to make it until after (or during) the Paris workshop on the review itself. I don't know the answer to that. Beau -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Sat 6/21/2008 6:18 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would be inclined to cut the attack on the reviewers' selection and focus on substantive disagreements and their failure to include all the options presented to them. I know I recommended reverting to general at-large elections for board members, scrapping the intermediary of the ALS-RALO-ALAC structure, and I'm disturbed that they didn't even mention that among the alternatives. I would really have liked to see a thoughtful comparison to justify the heavyweight structures that require intensive participation, over lightweight voting and delegation to empowered representatives, but see none. My chief concern with the ALAC has always been that it provides no reason fo rhte ordinary Internet user to get involved, despite the range of places where ICANN's mandate affects the Internet user. I don't think users should have to be intensively involved in issues of peripheral importance, but that shouldn't deprive them of a way to voice hteir opinions. Votes have always seemed to me like the natural way to bridge collective action problems, to express shallow but widely shared opinion. I understand that's not what ICANN chose, but it still seems flawed to ignore that baseline. - --Wendy Evan Leibovitch wrote:
NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus.
Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night.
If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes.
- Evan
---------------------------------------------------------
NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community.
The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to.
The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance.
Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak.
Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional.
What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation.
For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency.
This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
- -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFIXNVauuui10VsrVERAnnQAJdlY3GOxNSNu7uBorGAAQxJwd7tAJ9ItagS SnRyw5lqf7A80bNeNj6DFQ== =1ErH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ *** Scanned
participants (8)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Bret Fausett -
Dominik Filipp -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jeffrey A. Williams -
Robert Guerra -
Thompson, Darlene -
Wendy Seltzer