History of the At-Large definition
Shortly after ICANN's creation a Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) was formed that examined issues related to At-Large membership. The MAC found consensus on the following definition of who/what is an at-large community member: "1. At-large membership is for those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations. It includes individual users and should not be limited to IP address holders or domain name holders. We want as large and diverse a representation of users as possible." http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/conrades.html One might reasonably ask "as ICANN has a home for both commercial and non-commercial organizations (the BC and the NCUC -- and logically, that should cover the entire gamut of organizations out there), what type of organizations don't have representation within the Supporting Organizations?" There are certain commercial interests (such as domain name resellers) that are not granted participatory opportunities within the BC due to BC Charter exclusions. There are also noncommercial organizations that are denied membership in the NCUC owing to charter considerations: Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically excludes: -- Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials -- Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) -- Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization The MAC wanted to make sure that the At-Large would constitute the catch-all category so that no entity would be excluded from the ICANN process (this is why their definition included "organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations"). This consensus definition of the At-Large was later changed (some would say perverted) by members of the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) that were hand-picked by former ICANN Chairman of the Board Esther Dyson after ICANN had eliminated all elected At-Large directors. The new definition created by these ICANN insiders allowed for almost any organization (even those already represented by constituency structures) to become part of the At-Large. This change of definition served to divide the community of civil society organizations and to dilute their collective impact and well-served ICANN's interests (as they had described the Civil Society element that kept raging for ICANN reform as ICANN's single largest distraction). Instead of the At-Large being recognized as a body that was primarily comprised of individuals (with an occasional organizational entity as part of the mix), the new at-large definition posited organizations as the primary stakeholders in the at-large with individuals treated almost as an afterthought. In most RALOS now, individuals either don't have voting rights or their rights are not on a par with those of organizational entities). The broad At-Large community has never accepted the new definition of the at-large that was foisted upon us. The current definition has no consensus-based support and it primarily serves to exclude the very individuals that are what the at-large community was all about. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi Danny I would agree that the broad AtLarge community indeed has never ratified the definition (either the first or the second)- as I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them have never been asked. The "consensus based" definition was also a consensus among a group that left out most of the atlarge community. Now we have outreach to many parts of the world, we can ask the regions to ask their ALSes individual members, and other individual uses who may not be members of ALSes to discuss and agree (or not) to the definition. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:31 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] History of the At-Large definition Shortly after ICANN's creation a Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) was formed that examined issues related to At-Large membership. The MAC found consensus on the following definition of who/what is an at-large community member: "1. At-large membership is for those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations. It includes individual users and should not be limited to IP address holders or domain name holders. We want as large and diverse a representation of users as possible." http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/conrades.html One might reasonably ask "as ICANN has a home for both commercial and non-commercial organizations (the BC and the NCUC -- and logically, that should cover the entire gamut of organizations out there), what type of organizations don't have representation within the Supporting Organizations?" There are certain commercial interests (such as domain name resellers) that are not granted participatory opportunities within the BC due to BC Charter exclusions. There are also noncommercial organizations that are denied membership in the NCUC owing to charter considerations: Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically excludes: -- Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials -- Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) -- Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization The MAC wanted to make sure that the At-Large would constitute the catch-all category so that no entity would be excluded from the ICANN process (this is why their definition included "organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations"). This consensus definition of the At-Large was later changed (some would say perverted) by members of the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) that were hand-picked by former ICANN Chairman of the Board Esther Dyson after ICANN had eliminated all elected At-Large directors. The new definition created by these ICANN insiders allowed for almost any organization (even those already represented by constituency structures) to become part of the At-Large. This change of definition served to divide the community of civil society organizations and to dilute their collective impact and well-served ICANN's interests (as they had described the Civil Society element that kept raging for ICANN reform as ICANN's single largest distraction). Instead of the At-Large being recognized as a body that was primarily comprised of individuals (with an occasional organizational entity as part of the mix), the new at-large definition posited organizations as the primary stakeholders in the at-large with individuals treated almost as an afterthought. In most RALOS now, individuals either don't have voting rights or their rights are not on a par with those of organizational entities). The broad At-Large community has never accepted the new definition of the at-large that was foisted upon us. The current definition has no consensus-based support and it primarily serves to exclude the very individuals that are what the at-large community was all about. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM
Danny, If the At Large sentiment is as you say, would it make sense for there to be some effort to organize that constituency as a collective in a process of its own design and not under the rubric of something established via ICANN and with resources assembled independently? To the extent that we are considering the nature of the RALO... the MOU and OP... I'd prefer that we look at the question from that wider frame: how might we constitute a collective effort to promote awareness, dialogue and when clear (or even when not in clear consensus), our common (or diverse) values as At-Large individuals and structures, and project them into the appropriate discourses and decision making processes. That is, as a network of persons and organizations, how might we be more effective as a "NARALO" community? -MM On 4/19/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi Danny I would agree that the broad AtLarge community indeed has never ratified the definition (either the first or the second)- as I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them have never been asked. The "consensus based" definition was also a consensus among a group that left out most of the atlarge community. Now we have outreach to many parts of the world, we can ask the regions to ask their ALSes individual members, and other individual uses who may not be members of ALSes to discuss and agree (or not) to the definition. Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:31 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] History of the At-Large definition
Shortly after ICANN's creation a Membership Advisory Committee (MAC) was formed that examined issues related to At-Large membership. The MAC found consensus on the following definition of who/what is an at-large community member:
"1. At-large membership is for those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations. It includes individual users and should not be limited to IP address holders or domain name holders. We want as large and diverse a representation of users as possible." http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/conrades.html
One might reasonably ask "as ICANN has a home for both commercial and non-commercial organizations (the BC and the NCUC -- and logically, that should cover the entire gamut of organizations out there), what type of organizations don't have representation within the Supporting Organizations?"
There are certain commercial interests (such as domain name resellers) that are not granted participatory opportunities within the BC due to BC Charter exclusions.
There are also noncommercial organizations that are denied membership in the NCUC owing to charter considerations:
Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically excludes: -- Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials -- Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) -- Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization
The MAC wanted to make sure that the At-Large would constitute the catch-all category so that no entity would be excluded from the ICANN process (this is why their definition included "organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations").
This consensus definition of the At-Large was later changed (some would say perverted) by members of the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) that were hand-picked by former ICANN Chairman of the Board Esther Dyson after ICANN had eliminated all elected At-Large directors.
The new definition created by these ICANN insiders allowed for almost any organization (even those already represented by constituency structures) to become part of the At-Large. This change of definition served to divide the community of civil society organizations and to dilute their collective impact and well-served ICANN's interests (as they had described the Civil Society element that kept raging for ICANN reform as ICANN's single largest distraction).
Instead of the At-Large being recognized as a body that was primarily comprised of individuals (with an occasional organizational entity as part of the mix), the new at-large definition posited organizations as the primary stakeholders in the at-large with individuals treated almost as an afterthought. In most RALOS now, individuals either don't have voting rights or their rights are not on a par with those of organizational entities).
The broad At-Large community has never accepted the new definition of the at-large that was foisted upon us. The current definition has no consensus-based support and it primarily serves to exclude the very individuals that are what the at-large community was all about.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
Theresa Swinehart spoke to this proposal to implement the ICANN Fellowships program. She noted that it had been under development for some time and that it derived from the ICANN Operational Plan project 4F to create a program to encourage and find participation by interested parties in developing countries. Theresa explained that there had been extensive analysis of who might qualify for a fellowship and that subject to Board approval staff would invite applications for fellowships for the next ICANN meeting at San Juan, Puerto Rico. She said that the program was intended to improve participation in ICANN meetings and processes for resident citizens from countries /territories with low, lower-middle and upper middle income as classified by the World Bank. Peter Dengate-Thrush offered congratulations on the development of the program but asked why the fellowships appeared limited only to ICANN supporting organizations or committees. Theresa explained that while any resident citizen of a qualifying country could apply, the target audience for the program will be government representatives that wish to participate in the Governmental Advisory Committee, the ccTLD community and the non-profit sector not associated with the At-Large Advisory Committee. The At-Large Advisory Committee already administers its own funding for these purposes. Steve Goldstein asked whether the money for the program had been budgeted. Paul Twomey advised that it had. Rita Rodin supported the program and asked whether there was evidence that the program would get the desired results. Vint Cerf noted that the International Telecommunications Union had success with a program that offered subsidization for lower income countries. Vanda Scartezini also expressed support for this proposal and welcomed the precautions to avoid fraud. Her experience led her to believe that there needed to be rigorous measures in place. Paul Twomey noted that the program would be funded annually and that Puerto Rico would be the first occasion the program would be run. It would serve as a useful opportunity for a close examination of the programs implementation prior to the commencement of the new financial year and re-committal of any funds Janis Karklins believed this was a very good initiative. He noted that the list of countries included big and prosperous countries like the Russian Federation, or Poland, Latvia and Hungary members of the European Union, amongst others. He thought that priority should be given to smaller and less developed economies. Alejandro Pisanty moved and Vanda Scartezini seconded the following motion: Resolved (07._) that the ICANN Fellowships Program be approved for implementation. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote to be taken and Board members voted 10-0 with two abstentions accordingly: For: Vinton G. Cerf, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Roberto Gaetano, Alejandro Pisanty, Demi Getschko, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Njeri Rionge, Rita Rodin, Vanda Scartezini, Paul Twomey. Against: none. Abstentions: Susan Crawford, Steve Goldstein. http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-25apr07.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
At 12:50 PM -0700 5/4/07, Danny Younger recently said:
Peter Dengate-Thrush offered congratulations on the development of the program but asked why the fellowships appeared limited only to ICANN supporting organizations or committees. Theresa explained that while any resident citizen of a qualifying country could apply, the target audience for the program will be government representatives that wish to participate in the Governmental Advisory Committee, the ccTLD community and the non-profit sector not associated with the At-Large Advisory Committee. The At-Large Advisory Committee already administers its own funding for these purposes.
This is not strictly true. There is a difference between At Large and the At Large Advisory Committee. The former has direct ICANN funding, the latter does not. At Large has funding that it administers but it is incorrect to say that the At Large Advisory Committee administers any funds at all. ALAC can propose expenditures of funds from At-Large, which it sometimes gets, and sometimes does not get. The point is that ALAC cannot just direct At-Large to go out and pay for travel for ICANN constituents, services, research, or anything else. There's a proposal process that has to move up through channels.
participants (4)
-
Danny Younger -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jean Armour Polly -
Michael Maranda