Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application
Danny, a point on this subject, for my edification if it isn't too much trouble. When the ICANN Bylaws refer to the NCUC in Article X, S5(1)(d), it states: e. Non-Commercial Users (representing the full range of non-commercial entity users of the Internet If one looks at the normal meaning of these words, I would take from it that the NCUC was designed to represent not individual Internet users, but non-commercial legally-constituted (or even not legally constituted) ENTITIES in a comprehensive way. Of course, this would apply to NGOs, and could apply to any NGO, but was that the design of this constituency? I gather that the original idea was that this was for the universities where the Internet was once managed, and other organisations of that type. This is of course not by way of saying that anyone should be excluded - on the contrary - just that it seems you are suggesting that we all blur the lines between individual Internet users' representatives (At-Large) and everyone else non-commercial (NCUC) very considerably. Is that actually beneficial? If you were to do that, then you would end up with duplicative structures, surely? Or are you actually advocating that the two constituencies should be merged together? I very much hope this does not launch a lot of disgruntlement or disagreeableness as that's far from the point (and I fail to see how it would actually bring much benefit) - I'm asking genuine questions here, not presuming the answers (I don't think). On 22/05/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
So why not do the right thing and refer them instead to the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)?
--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Alan,
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec).
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- -- 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
Nick, Thank you for these questions. As my response is predicated on elements drawn from ICANN's history, allow me first to direct you to an historical overview penned by Bret Fausett entitled, "Captured: The sad, predictable story of ICANN's at-large membership" at http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/184414542 My thoughts: From day one, the at-large was supposed to be about individuals that weren't otherwise represented within ICANN processes (individuals that would elect half of the ICANN Board so that the Special Interest elements would be properly balanced by the Public Interest elements). What you and your peers now deem to be the "at-large" is a far cry from what was envisioned -- frankly, it's a perversion whose current incarnation neither represents nor advocates for the "real at-large" that at this moment is pounding away at ICANN's doors screaming for relief. The construct that you have collectively assembled is nothing more than a collection of well-meaning civil society organizations that are just like the other well-meaning civil society organizations within the NCUC. They can pretend to be the at-large, but they are not. The real at-large (the mob out there with the pitchforks at hand) is livid over ICANN's handing of the Registerfly situation while your RALO organizations that pretend to be the at-large have given it narry a thought. All that has been accomplished in this four-and-a-half-year-long-ALAC-exercise is splitting the Civil Society element into two parts while ensuring that that the individuals pounding at your doors continue to have no voting rights within any ICANN deliberative or policy-recommending organ. Candidly, it matters little to me whether the RALO orgs merge with the NCUC orgs. In my view, neither set of orgs has done much of anything to protect the registrant interest. They're both just flip sides of the same coin. --- Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
Danny, a point on this subject, for my edification if it isn't too much trouble.
When the ICANN Bylaws refer to the NCUC in Article X, S5(1)(d), it states:
e. Non-Commercial Users (representing the full range of non-commercial entity users of the Internet
If one looks at the normal meaning of these words, I would take from it that the NCUC was designed to represent not individual Internet users, but non-commercial legally-constituted (or even not legally constituted) ENTITIES in a comprehensive way.
Of course, this would apply to NGOs, and could apply to any NGO, but was that the design of this constituency? I gather that the original idea was that this was for the universities where the Internet was once managed, and other organisations of that type.
This is of course not by way of saying that anyone should be excluded - on the contrary - just that it seems you are suggesting that we all blur the lines between individual Internet users' representatives (At-Large) and everyone else non-commercial (NCUC) very considerably. Is that actually beneficial? If you were to do that, then you would end up with duplicative structures, surely?
Or are you actually advocating that the two constituencies should be merged together?
I very much hope this does not launch a lot of disgruntlement or disagreeableness as that's far from the point (and I fail to see how it would actually bring much benefit) - I'm asking genuine questions here, not presuming the answers (I don't think).
On 22/05/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
So why not do the right thing and refer them instead to the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)?
--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Alan,
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec).
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- -- 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
____________________________________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
Danny, As usual, when you are short of arguments, you pull out your dogma of faith of the direct elections. But don't worry, if you are right, one day the enraged masses will rise, and deads will resurrect, and all will join in a triumphal march that will sweep the evil ICANN into the ocean. The power of the masses, once they have acquired consciousness, will overcome the forces of the imperialist capitalist pig and its lacqueys, and the world freedom will prevail. In the meantime, can we try to get something done, or shall we just sit and wait? Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 22 May 2007 21:39 To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: Luc Faubert; At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application
Nick,
Thank you for these questions. As my response is predicated on elements drawn from ICANN's history, allow me first to direct you to an historical overview penned by Bret Fausett entitled, "Captured: The sad, predictable story of ICANN's at-large membership" at http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/184414542
My thoughts: From day one, the at-large was supposed to be about individuals that weren't otherwise represented within ICANN processes (individuals that would elect half of the ICANN Board so that the Special Interest elements would be properly balanced by the Public Interest elements).
What you and your peers now deem to be the "at-large" is a far cry from what was envisioned -- frankly, it's a perversion whose current incarnation neither represents nor advocates for the "real at-large" that at this moment is pounding away at ICANN's doors screaming for relief.
The construct that you have collectively assembled is nothing more than a collection of well-meaning civil society organizations that are just like the other well-meaning civil society organizations within the NCUC. They can pretend to be the at-large, but they are not. The real at-large (the mob out there with the pitchforks at hand) is livid over ICANN's handing of the Registerfly situation while your RALO organizations that pretend to be the at-large have given it narry a thought.
All that has been accomplished in this four-and-a-half-year-long-ALAC-exercise is splitting the Civil Society element into two parts while ensuring that that the individuals pounding at your doors continue to have no voting rights within any ICANN deliberative or policy-recommending organ.
Candidly, it matters little to me whether the RALO orgs merge with the NCUC orgs. In my view, neither set of orgs has done much of anything to protect the registrant interest. They're both just flip sides of the same coin.
--- Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
Danny, a point on this subject, for my edification if it isn't too much trouble.
When the ICANN Bylaws refer to the NCUC in Article X, S5(1)(d), it states:
e. Non-Commercial Users (representing the full range of non-commercial entity users of the Internet
If one looks at the normal meaning of these words, I would take from it that the NCUC was designed to represent not individual Internet users, but non-commercial legally-constituted (or even not legally constituted) ENTITIES in a comprehensive way.
Of course, this would apply to NGOs, and could apply to any NGO, but was that the design of this constituency? I gather that the original idea was that this was for the universities where the Internet was once managed, and other organisations of that type.
This is of course not by way of saying that anyone should be excluded - on the contrary - just that it seems you are suggesting that we all blur the lines between individual Internet users' representatives (At-Large) and everyone else non-commercial (NCUC) very considerably. Is that actually beneficial? If you were to do that, then you would end up with duplicative structures, surely?
Or are you actually advocating that the two constituencies should be merged together?
I very much hope this does not launch a lot of disgruntlement or disagreeableness as that's far from the point (and I fail to see how it would actually bring much benefit) - I'm asking genuine questions here, not presuming the answers (I don't think).
On 22/05/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
So why not do the right thing and refer them instead to the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)?
--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Alan,
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec).
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
______________________________________________________________ ______________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC
Independent:
-- -- 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
______________________________________________________________ ______________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Roberto, Resorting to personal attacks? Not very good form... Let me remind you that I did not mention "direct elections". I, like many others, agreed with the conclusions of ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon At Large Study Committee that invested a massive amount of time and capital to conclude that a consensus existed for the formation of an At-Large Supporting Organization that would elect a third of the seats on the ICANN Board. Too bad for us that the ICANN Board no longer respects consensus. ...and if you really want to start working, why don't we all start working at the point that the ICANN Board becomes transparent and accountable? If you can arrange for that to happen, I'll be glad to roll up my sleeves. regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny,
As usual, when you are short of arguments, you pull out your dogma of faith of the direct elections. But don't worry, if you are right, one day the enraged masses will rise, and deads will resurrect, and all will join in a triumphal march that will sweep the evil ICANN into the ocean. The power of the masses, once they have acquired consciousness, will overcome the forces of the imperialist capitalist pig and its lacqueys, and the world freedom will prevail.
In the meantime, can we try to get something done, or shall we just sit and wait?
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 22 May 2007 21:39 To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: Luc Faubert; At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application
Nick,
Thank you for these questions. As my response is predicated on elements drawn from ICANN's history, allow me first to direct you to an historical overview penned by Bret Fausett entitled, "Captured: The sad, predictable story of ICANN's at-large membership" at http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/184414542
My thoughts: From day one, the at-large was supposed to be about individuals that weren't otherwise represented within ICANN processes (individuals that would elect half of the ICANN Board so that the Special Interest elements would be properly balanced by the Public Interest elements).
What you and your peers now deem to be the "at-large" is a far cry from what was envisioned -- frankly, it's a perversion whose current incarnation neither represents nor advocates for the "real at-large" that at this moment is pounding away at ICANN's doors screaming for relief.
The construct that you have collectively assembled is nothing more than a collection of well-meaning civil society organizations that are just like the other well-meaning civil society organizations within the NCUC. They can pretend to be the at-large, but they are not. The real at-large (the mob out there with the pitchforks at hand) is livid over ICANN's handing of the Registerfly situation while your RALO organizations that pretend to be the at-large have given it narry a thought.
All that has been accomplished in this four-and-a-half-year-long-ALAC-exercise is splitting the Civil Society element into two parts while ensuring that that the individuals pounding at your doors continue to have no voting rights within any ICANN deliberative or policy-recommending organ.
Candidly, it matters little to me whether the RALO orgs merge with the NCUC orgs. In my view, neither set of orgs has done much of anything to protect the registrant interest. They're both just flip sides of the same coin.
--- Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
Danny, a point on this subject, for my edification if it isn't too much trouble.
When the ICANN Bylaws refer to the NCUC in Article X, S5(1)(d), it states:
e. Non-Commercial Users (representing the full range of non-commercial entity users of the Internet
If one looks at the normal meaning of these words, I would take from it that the NCUC was designed to represent not individual Internet users, but non-commercial legally-constituted (or even not legally constituted) ENTITIES in a comprehensive way.
Of course, this would apply to NGOs, and could apply to any NGO, but was that the design of this constituency? I gather that the original idea was that this was for the universities where the Internet was once managed, and other organisations of that type.
This is of course not by way of saying that anyone should be excluded - on the contrary - just that it seems you are suggesting that we all blur the lines between individual Internet users' representatives (At-Large) and everyone else non-commercial (NCUC) very considerably. Is that actually beneficial? If you were to do that, then you would end up with duplicative structures, surely?
Or are you actually advocating that the two constituencies should be merged together?
I very much hope this does not launch a lot of disgruntlement or disagreeableness as that's far from the point (and I fail to see how it would actually bring much benefit) - I'm asking genuine questions here, not presuming the answers (I don't think).
On 22/05/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
So why not do the right thing and refer them instead to the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)?
--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Alan,
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
Danny Younger wrote, on 23 May 2007 01:40:
Let me remind you that I did not mention "direct elections". I, like many others, agreed with the conclusions of ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon At Large Study Committee that invested a massive amount of time and capital to conclude that a consensus existed for the formation of an At-Large Supporting Organization that would elect a third of the seats on the ICANN Board.
Danny Younger had written, on 22 May 2007 21:39:
My thoughts: From day one, the at-large was supposed to be about individuals that weren't otherwise represented within ICANN processes (individuals that would elect half of the ICANN Board so that the Special Interest elements would be properly balanced by the Public Interest elements).
Cheers, Roberto
...and is it your intent as head of the Board Governance Committee to continue ducking the issue of At-Large representation on ICANN's Board? or the issues of transparency and accountability? Presumably you directors did more than feast at the ICANN director's retreat; will we ever get a synopsis of your discussions, or does your concept of transparency in the public interest still preclude disclosure? regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote, on 23 May 2007 01:40:
Let me remind you that I did not mention "direct elections". I, like many others, agreed with the conclusions of ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon At Large Study Committee that invested a massive amount of time and capital to conclude that a consensus existed for the formation of an At-Large Supporting Organization that would elect a third of the seats on the ICANN Board.
Danny Younger had written, on 22 May 2007 21:39:
My thoughts: From day one, the at-large was supposed to be about individuals that weren't otherwise represented within ICANN processes (individuals that would elect half of the ICANN Board so that the Special Interest elements would be properly balanced by the Public Interest elements).
Cheers, Roberto
____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Why would you say that they are ducking the issue of At Large VOTING representation on the Board? It's been discussed at the ALAC/Board meetings several times, and in Lisbon we got quite a positive response. We do currently have representation on the Board, BTW. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:19 PM To: Roberto Gaetano; nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: 'Luc Faubert'; 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Reason for NO vote for TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application ...and is it your intent as head of the Board Governance Committee to continue ducking the issue of At-Large representation on ICANN's Board? or the issues of transparency and accountability? Presumably you directors did more than feast at the ICANN director's retreat; will we ever get a synopsis of your discussions, or does your concept of transparency in the public interest still preclude disclosure? regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote, on 23 May 2007 01:40:
Let me remind you that I did not mention "direct elections". I, like many others, agreed with the conclusions of ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon At Large Study Committee that invested a massive amount of time and capital to conclude that a consensus existed for the formation of an At-Large Supporting Organization that would elect a third of the seats on the ICANN Board.
Danny Younger had written, on 22 May 2007 21:39:
My thoughts: From day one, the at-large was supposed to be about individuals that weren't otherwise represented within ICANN processes (individuals that would elect half of the ICANN Board so that the Special Interest elements would be properly balanced by the Public Interest elements).
Cheers, Roberto
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 _______________________________________________ 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 Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Why would you say that they are ducking the issue of At Large VOTING representation on the Board? It's been discussed at the ALAC/Board meetings several times, and in Lisbon we got quite a positive response. We do currently have representation on the Board, BTW.
Really? That's news to me. I'd better tell the voting electorate, since they won't likely be aware either. I'll consider it a positive response when we actually see a change in structure. --Wendy -- 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/
What, that we have a non-voting representative on the Board currently or that Vint said in the meeting - yeah, that might be something good that we should do - when we brought it up yet again, of course in the context of over 90 ALS applications (at the time), as opposed to - we deserve it just because...as we have been doing in the past (and that never got even that much of a response) . -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:46 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Reason for NO vote for TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Why would you say that they are ducking the issue of At Large VOTING representation on the Board? It's been discussed at the ALAC/Board meetings several times, and in Lisbon we got quite a positive response. We do currently have representation on the Board, BTW.
Really? That's news to me. I'd better tell the voting electorate, since they won't likely be aware either. I'll consider it a positive response when we actually see a change in structure. --Wendy -- 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM
Danny The AtLarge users that I talk to are livid about the Dominica ccTLD contract that is due to run until 2011, that charges US$150 for a domain. NOT registerfly. Others are interested in getting back the management of their cctlds from foreign interests. NOT registerfly. I have asked over 200 individual internet users in the Caribbean about the issues that are important to them and not one said Registerfly. So we represent OUR users. There are over 1 billion current internet users and the ENTIRE population of the US is 300 million. There are more internet users than DOUBLE the entire population of the US who live in countries other than the US. And US issues are NOT paramount in other regions. I don't see you screaming about IDNs, but people in e.g. China are desperate for this to move ahead. The RALOS in those regions are trying to work on the issues that are important in their regions. The At Large in North America is UNREPRESENTED because YOU who are supposed to be their representatives are doing NOTHING about their issues. If you want to blame the non-representation of the Registerfly users (who are almost ALL North American from what I've seen) on the LAC, or AP, or Africa, keep doing so, but really, it's you guys who are responsible, and you who are dropping the ball. Excuse the tone, but I'm getting really pissed off by some of the posts from North America , which is the LAST RALO to form and the LAST one that is holding the At Large back from ending its Interim status and getting going on its policy work. Honestly, if NA doesn't want to do anything - the rest of the regions will go ahead and work on the issues that our at large users tell us are important to them, and the North American users will be left twisting in the wind while the "representatives" - (who by the way haven't as yet been voted for by ANY individual user) keep whining about the ALAC not doing anything for the region's users. You have a "rep" now. Why not direct this criticism there? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:39 PM To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: Luc Faubert; At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application Nick, Thank you for these questions. As my response is predicated on elements drawn from ICANN's history, allow me first to direct you to an historical overview penned by Bret Fausett entitled, "Captured: The sad, predictable story of ICANN's at-large membership" at http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/184414542 My thoughts: From day one, the at-large was supposed to be about individuals that weren't otherwise represented within ICANN processes (individuals that would elect half of the ICANN Board so that the Special Interest elements would be properly balanced by the Public Interest elements). What you and your peers now deem to be the "at-large" is a far cry from what was envisioned -- frankly, it's a perversion whose current incarnation neither represents nor advocates for the "real at-large" that at this moment is pounding away at ICANN's doors screaming for relief. The construct that you have collectively assembled is nothing more than a collection of well-meaning civil society organizations that are just like the other well-meaning civil society organizations within the NCUC. They can pretend to be the at-large, but they are not. The real at-large (the mob out there with the pitchforks at hand) is livid over ICANN's handing of the Registerfly situation while your RALO organizations that pretend to be the at-large have given it narry a thought. All that has been accomplished in this four-and-a-half-year-long-ALAC-exercise is splitting the Civil Society element into two parts while ensuring that that the individuals pounding at your doors continue to have no voting rights within any ICANN deliberative or policy-recommending organ. Candidly, it matters little to me whether the RALO orgs merge with the NCUC orgs. In my view, neither set of orgs has done much of anything to protect the registrant interest. They're both just flip sides of the same coin. --- Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
Danny, a point on this subject, for my edification if it isn't too much trouble.
When the ICANN Bylaws refer to the NCUC in Article X, S5(1)(d), it states:
e. Non-Commercial Users (representing the full range of non-commercial entity users of the Internet
If one looks at the normal meaning of these words, I would take from it that the NCUC was designed to represent not individual Internet users, but non-commercial legally-constituted (or even not legally constituted) ENTITIES in a comprehensive way.
Of course, this would apply to NGOs, and could apply to any NGO, but was that the design of this constituency? I gather that the original idea was that this was for the universities where the Internet was once managed, and other organisations of that type.
This is of course not by way of saying that anyone should be excluded - on the contrary - just that it seems you are suggesting that we all blur the lines between individual Internet users' representatives (At-Large) and everyone else non-commercial (NCUC) very considerably. Is that actually beneficial? If you were to do that, then you would end up with duplicative structures, surely?
Or are you actually advocating that the two constituencies should be merged together?
I very much hope this does not launch a lot of disgruntlement or disagreeableness as that's far from the point (and I fail to see how it would actually bring much benefit) - I'm asking genuine questions here, not presuming the answers (I don't think).
On 22/05/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
So why not do the right thing and refer them instead to the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)?
--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Alan,
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec).
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
____________________________________________________________________________ ________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- -- 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
____________________________________________________________________________ ________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM
participants (5)
-
Danny Younger -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Roberto Gaetano -
Wendy Seltzer