-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> I'm generally OK with the MOU, but share Luc's questions.
1. Are we really going to get away with the MOU's parag. 6.4?
We won't know if we don't try.
2. Why do we need parag. 6.5?
I agree that 6.5 is unnecessary. My group is involved as an ALS to represent the POV of its membership, and cannot pretend to do more than that. While our goal is public progress, we do that through the advancement of a specific form of advocacy and don't claim to represent all viewpoints. ws: That's precisely the point of including it. Since ALSs, even many of them, cannot represent all viewpoints, this gives members of the general public a way to intervene to speak for themselves. We can step way out in front of the other RALOs with this level of involvement. --Wendy
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Since ALSs, even many of them, cannot represent all viewpoints, this gives members of the general public a way to intervene to speak for themselves. We can step way out in front of the other RALOs with this level of involvement.
May be, but the "this" is in the wrong place. The MOU is the agreement between ALSs and ICANN. It is beyond the scope of the ALS/RALO framework to accommodate individuals. If folks here want to advocate a process for ICANN to solicit public input from individuals, that's an admirable goal. However, it does not belong as a footnote of a document intended to define the ALS framework. This is exactly the kind of diversion that gets in the way of actually doing things of substance. I came into this process fully expecting a RALO to be an assembly of ALSs, nothing more, nothing less, and have neither the need nor the patience to debate whether it _should_ be more or less. Moreover, I have no interest whatsoever in "stepping out" (let alone "way" out) in front of other RALOs, being on a par with them is just fine for now. Let's crawl before trying to run; we haven't even empowered ourselves yet! Thank you for helping me to solidify my position against inclusion of 6.5. There is a place to define personal public input. That place is not within a RALO MOU. And activitst attempts to change the rules on the fly are no less objectionable than what ICANN staff has been claimed to do. - Evan
At 01:48 AM 4/12/2007, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Since ALSs, even many of them, cannot represent all viewpoints, this gives members of the general public a way to intervene to speak for themselves. We can step way out in front of the other RALOs with this level of involvement.
May be, but the "this" is in the wrong place. The MOU is the agreement between ALSs and ICANN. It is beyond the scope of the ALS/RALO framework to accommodate individuals.
It's a way for individuals to exert pressure on ICANN, not on the RALO. The provision would have no effect on the day-to-day functioning of the collection of ALSs, but gives individuals (and ALSs) recourse when ICANN screws up. Where's the possible harm? --Wendy Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
It's a way for individuals to exert pressure on ICANN, not on the RALO. Then this provision has no place in a document governing the RALO.
The provision would have no effect on the day-to-day functioning of the collection of ALSs, but gives individuals (and ALSs) recourse when ICANN screws up. That recourse exists whether it's granted to them by the RALO or not.
Where's the possible harm?
Lack. Of. Focus. - Evan
At 08:23 AM 4/12/2007, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
It's a way for individuals to exert pressure on ICANN, not on the RALO. Then this provision has no place in a document governing the RALO.
That's why it's in the MOU with ICANN, not the Operating Principles of the RALO.
The provision would have no effect on the day-to-day functioning of the collection of ALSs, but gives individuals (and ALSs) recourse when ICANN screws up. That recourse exists whether it's granted to them by the RALO or not.
As written, it's granted by ICANN. We're using the fact that ICANN wants to sign this MOU for leverage.
Where's the possible harm?
Lack. Of. Focus.
No, it's pin-point focused on getting individuals heard within ICANN, precisely what ALSs and RALOs are supposed to be about. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Be advised that members of the General Assembly discussion list have started a Working Group to deal with necessary revisions to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. To subscribe to the General Assembly list, please send an email to <majordomo[at]gnso.icann.org> with the words subscribe ga in the body of the message. ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
"The Chair of the ALAC shall be ineligible to serve on the ALAC or ICANN's Nominating Committee in any year in which he or she also serves as Chair of the NARALO General Assembly." This seems to be a typo - should be the Chair of the NARALO. The Chair of the ALAC must serve on the ALAC. Jacqueline -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
Huh? regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 12-Apr-07, at 8:44 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
"The Chair of the ALAC shall be ineligible to serve on the ALAC or ICANN's Nominating Committee in any year in which he or she also serves as Chair of the NARALO General Assembly."
This seems to indicate that the chair of alac can not also serve on the alac or ICANN nominating committee - which seems ok to me. The question is, are we referring to the chair of NA/AlAC or ALAC as a whole ? My view is ALAC should have transparency and openness as a core value. Consequently, nomcom members should be as independent as possible. Practically this means that those serving in any sort of capacity in ICANN related structures should NOT BE eligible to serve on NomCom. Applying this to ALAC - any chair , be it regional , general assembly or the structure as a whole - shall be ineligible to serve on any Nominating committee setup by ALAC, ICANN or any ICANN related structures. regards Robert
This seems to be a typo - should be the Chair of the NARALO. The Chair of the ALAC must serve on the ALAC.
Jacqueline
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Robert The sitting ALAC members cannot serve on the NomCom at all - that's in ICANN's bylaws. But the Chair of the ALAC must be a sitting ALAC member. So it would be weird to say - the Chair of the ALAC can't serve on the ALAC... Besides - the ALAC has its own rules of procedure, and NARALO's rules shouldn't conflict with those, or with the ICANN bylaws, or else how do we sort that out? If would make sense if it read - The Chair of the NARALO shall be ineligible to serve on the ALAC or on ICANN's Nominating Committee in any year in which he or she serves as Chair of the NARALO General Assembly." Or Any member of the NARALO shall be ineligible to serve on the ALAC or on ICANN's Nominating Committee in any year in which he or she serves as Chair of the NARALO General Assembly. My $0.02 Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Mr. Robert Guerra [mailto:lists@privaterra.info] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:09 AM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Huh? regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 12-Apr-07, at 8:44 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
"The Chair of the ALAC shall be ineligible to serve on the ALAC or ICANN's Nominating Committee in any year in which he or she also serves as Chair of the NARALO General Assembly."
This seems to indicate that the chair of alac can not also serve on the alac or ICANN nominating committee - which seems ok to me. The question is, are we referring to the chair of NA/AlAC or ALAC as a whole ? My view is ALAC should have transparency and openness as a core value. Consequently, nomcom members should be as independent as possible. Practically this means that those serving in any sort of capacity in ICANN related structures should NOT BE eligible to serve on NomCom. Applying this to ALAC - any chair , be it regional , general assembly or the structure as a whole - shall be ineligible to serve on any Nominating committee setup by ALAC, ICANN or any ICANN related structures. regards Robert
This seems to be a typo - should be the Chair of the NARALO. The Chair of the ALAC must serve on the ALAC.
Jacqueline
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
_______________________________________________ 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: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
Section 7.2 Fees to be Paid to ICANN. "(a) Registry-Level Transaction Fee. Commencing on 1 July 2005, Registry Operator shall pay ICANN a Registry-Level Transaction Fee in an amount equal to US$0.75 for each annual increment of an initial or renewal domain name registration and for transferring a domain name registration from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another during the calendar quarter to which the Registry-Level Transaction Fee pertains. ICANN intends to apply this fee to purposes including: (a) a special restricted fund for developing country Internet communities to enable further participation in the ICANN mission by developing country stakeholders, (b) a special restricted fund to enhance and facilitate the security and stability of the DNS, and (c) general operating funds to support ICANN's mission to ensure the stable and secure operation of the DNS." http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/net/net-agreement-new.html As of the end of this year there were 8,750,236 registrations in .net -- by my calculations (at 75 cents per registration) that would mean a fund in excess of $6,562,677 (a portion of which would be used for developing country participation). For starters, I would like to know what percentage of the funds will be or has been allocated for such purposes and the specific plan for the expenditure of such funds. Presumably this is a matter that would be of interest to several of the RALOs. ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
Thanks Danny This is definitely of interest. I will keep you informed of what I find out! Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:31 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Developing Country Participation Fund Section 7.2 Fees to be Paid to ICANN. "(a) Registry-Level Transaction Fee. Commencing on 1 July 2005, Registry Operator shall pay ICANN a Registry-Level Transaction Fee in an amount equal to US$0.75 for each annual increment of an initial or renewal domain name registration and for transferring a domain name registration from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another during the calendar quarter to which the Registry-Level Transaction Fee pertains. ICANN intends to apply this fee to purposes including: (a) a special restricted fund for developing country Internet communities to enable further participation in the ICANN mission by developing country stakeholders, (b) a special restricted fund to enhance and facilitate the security and stability of the DNS, and (c) general operating funds to support ICANN's mission to ensure the stable and secure operation of the DNS." http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/net/net-agreement-new.html As of the end of this year there were 8,750,236 registrations in .net -- by my calculations (at 75 cents per registration) that would mean a fund in excess of $6,562,677 (a portion of which would be used for developing country participation). For starters, I would like to know what percentage of the funds will be or has been allocated for such purposes and the specific plan for the expenditure of such funds. Presumably this is a matter that would be of interest to several of the RALOs. ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
Thanks Jacqueline. It's fixed. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: 12 avril 2007 08:45 To: 'Evan Leibovitch'; 'Wendy Seltzer' Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
"The Chair of the ALAC shall be ineligible to serve on the ALAC or ICANN's Nominating Committee in any year in which he or she also serves as Chair of the NARALO General Assembly."
This seems to be a typo - should be the Chair of the NARALO. The Chair of the ALAC must serve on the ALAC.
Jacqueline
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
After reading the recent dialogue about the draft MOU with ICANN, I thought it was worth noting that the final MOU will be the subject of negotation between the NARALO and ICANN. What we're putting together now is simply our "wish list." After we submit our wish list to ICANN, we'll have a sense of what ICANN feels will work and what won't. At that point, and if necessary, we can decide whether to (a) compromise and create the RALO or (b) hold firm on certain principles, either prolonging the negotiation or declining to form a RALO because the terms aren't acceptable. We ought to agree on the internal operating procedures first. http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP If these procedures are agreed by the ALSs, we would then use "rough consensus" processes to determine what the proposed MOU should look like. Bret
I'm OK with the OP, _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: 12 avril 2007 21:55 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
After reading the recent dialogue about the draft MOU with ICANN, I thought it was worth noting that the final MOU will be the subject of negotation between the NARALO and ICANN. What we're putting together now is simply our "wish list." After we submit our wish list to ICANN, we'll have a sense of what ICANN feels will work and what won't. At that point, and if necessary, we can decide whether to (a) compromise and create the RALO or (b) hold firm on certain principles, either prolonging the negotiation or declining to form a RALO because the terms aren't acceptable.
We ought to agree on the internal operating procedures first.
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
If these procedures are agreed by the ALSs, we would then use "rough consensus" processes to determine what the proposed MOU should look like.
Bret
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
On Apr 12, 2007, at 8:02 PM, Luc Faubert wrote:
I'm OK with the OP,
I think it's pretty good too. What do you think about a new Paragraph 15 that would read: "These Operating Principles will take effect when adopted by not less than 75% of the North American At Large Structures then accredited. They may be amended at any time by an affirmative vote of not less than 75% of the North American At Large Structures then accredited." What does the group think about holding this draft open for discussion for another week and then sending whatever we have finished by then out to the ALSs for review and a ratification vote? Bret
I'm thinking that 75% might be a little high. Not sure, though. I'm just worried about lack of participation tieing our hands from doing ANYTHING. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 12:50 AM To: Luc Faubert Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items On Apr 12, 2007, at 8:02 PM, Luc Faubert wrote:
I'm OK with the OP,
I think it's pretty good too. What do you think about a new Paragraph 15 that would read: "These Operating Principles will take effect when adopted by not less than 75% of the North American At Large Structures then accredited. They may be amended at any time by an affirmative vote of not less than 75% of the North American At Large Structures then accredited." What does the group think about holding this draft open for discussion for another week and then sending whatever we have finished by then out to the ALSs for review and a ratification vote? Bret _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
In my experience, a "best practice" for bylaws is to have some super-majority for initial adoption and also for subsequent amendment. It provides legitimacy by establishing widespread support for the rules. A super-majority likely means that we will have to chase down some votes along the way, but if we can't get people to vote now, at the start, we're in trouble. I initially had 80% in there but dropped it to 75%. I wouldn't go below a 2/3 vote. Right now, I believe we have 11 ALSs in NA. 80% would require 9 votes (>8.8 votes). 75% also would require 9 votes (>8.25). 70% drops us to 8 votes (>7.7), and 66.6% also would require 8 votes (>7.26). -- Bret Thompson, Darlene wrote:
I'm thinking that 75% might be a little high. Not sure, though. I'm just worried about lack of participation tieing our hands from doing ANYTHING.
In my experience, a "best practice" for bylaws is to have some super-majority for initial adoption and also for subsequent amendment. It provides legitimacy by establishing widespread support for the rules.
Agreed. If we can't get a supermajority to say explicitly that they at least don't object, we don't have agreement. Given our experience with ALAC members who went AWOL, I also agree that we need a simple process to deal with people who've lost interest. We don't have to eject them, but we at least need to make them not count as part of a quorum. My suggestion for considering someone an active member would be a published comment on an ICANN issue within the preceding 18 months. That just requires following the issues and sending one e-mail message. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
Policy contributions of ALSes can take 2 forms: - contributions to NARALO positions, - independent comments to ICANN (the sort you refer to, John, for which I think the evaluation method you propose is good [we could ask orgs that send independent comments to cc the NA-DISCUSS list]). An easily measurable criterion could thus be worthwhile activity on our NA-DISCUSS list in the last 12 months. The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile", examples of activity that could be considered worthwhile being at least one instance of: - a cc to the list of a comment sent directly to ICANN, - semantic contributions to discussions/positions, as opposed to just approve/disapprove. We could require both conditions for ALSes to have the right to vote: - having made at least one worthwhile contribution on the list in the last 12 months, - having voted at least once in the last 3 elections. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: 14 avril 2007 01:05 To: Bret Fausett Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
In my experience, a "best practice" for bylaws is to have some super-majority for initial adoption and also for subsequent amendment. It provides legitimacy by establishing widespread support for the rules.
Agreed. If we can't get a supermajority to say explicitly that they at least don't object, we don't have agreement.
Given our experience with ALAC members who went AWOL, I also agree that we need a simple process to deal with people who've lost interest. We don't have to eject them, but we at least need to make them not count as part of a quorum. My suggestion for considering someone an active member would be a published comment on an ICANN issue within the preceding 18 months. That just requires following the issues and sending one e-mail message.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Overall good - but who decides which contributions are "worthwhile"? Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc Faubert Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:02 PM To: John L; Bret Fausett Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Policy contributions of ALSes can take 2 forms: - contributions to NARALO positions, - independent comments to ICANN (the sort you refer to, John, for which I think the evaluation method you propose is good [we could ask orgs that send independent comments to cc the NA-DISCUSS list]). An easily measurable criterion could thus be worthwhile activity on our NA-DISCUSS list in the last 12 months. The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile", examples of activity that could be considered worthwhile being at least one instance of: - a cc to the list of a comment sent directly to ICANN, - semantic contributions to discussions/positions, as opposed to just approve/disapprove. We could require both conditions for ALSes to have the right to vote: - having made at least one worthwhile contribution on the list in the last 12 months, - having voted at least once in the last 3 elections. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: 14 avril 2007 01:05 To: Bret Fausett Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
In my experience, a "best practice" for bylaws is to have some super-majority for initial adoption and also for subsequent amendment. It provides legitimacy by establishing widespread support for the rules.
Agreed. If we can't get a supermajority to say explicitly that they at least don't object, we don't have agreement.
Given our experience with ALAC members who went AWOL, I also agree that we need a simple process to deal with people who've lost interest. We don't have to eject them, but we at least need to make them not count as part of a quorum. My suggestion for considering someone an active member would be a published comment on an ICANN issue within the preceding 18 months. That just requires following the issues and sending one e-mail message.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile"". _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: 16 avril 2007 08:59 To: Luc Faubert; John L; Bret Fausett Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Overall good - but who decides which contributions are "worthwhile"?
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc Faubert Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:02 PM To: John L; Bret Fausett Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Policy contributions of ALSes can take 2 forms: - contributions to NARALO positions, - independent comments to ICANN (the sort you refer to, John, for which I think the evaluation method you propose is good [we could ask orgs that send independent comments to cc the NA-DISCUSS list]).
An easily measurable criterion could thus be worthwhile activity on our NA-DISCUSS list in the last 12 months. The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile", examples of activity that could be considered worthwhile being at least one instance of: - a cc to the list of a comment sent directly to ICANN, - semantic contributions to discussions/positions, as opposed to just approve/disapprove.
We could require both conditions for ALSes to have the right to vote: - having made at least one worthwhile contribution on the list in the last 12 months, - having voted at least once in the last 3 elections.
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: 14 avril 2007 01:05 To: Bret Fausett Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
In my experience, a "best practice" for bylaws is to have some super-majority for initial adoption and also for subsequent amendment. It provides legitimacy by establishing widespread support for the rules.
Agreed. If we can't get a supermajority to say explicitly that they at least don't object, we don't have agreement.
Given our experience with ALAC members who went AWOL, I also agree that we need a simple process to deal with people who've lost interest. We don't have to eject them, but we at least need to make them not count as part of a quorum. My suggestion for considering someone an active member would be a published comment on an ICANN issue within the preceding 18 months. That just requires following the issues and sending one e-mail message.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Luc Faubert wrote:
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call. I am accountable to my group's membership for the quality of our participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to this sub-group that -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even determining a meeting site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take place!). Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose participants complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff power, yet have no problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to the group itself? Two wrongs do NOT make a right. Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave such a provision out. If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it. - Evan
Evan, Here's the complete proposal that I sent to the list in response to John's suggestion, which I hope will answer your question, as it documents specific criteria the Chair would use to decide: Policy contributions of ALSes can take 2 forms: - contributions to NARALO positions, - independent comments to ICANN (the sort you refer to, John, for which I think the evaluation method you propose is good [we could ask orgs that send independent comments to cc the NA-DISCUSS list]). An easily measurable criterion could thus be worthwhile activity on our NA-DISCUSS list in the last 12 months. The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile", examples of activity that could be considered worthwhile being at least one instance of: - a cc to the list of a comment sent directly to ICANN, - semantic contributions to discussions/positions, as opposed to just approve/disapprove. We could require both conditions for ALSes to have the right to vote: - having made at least one worthwhile contribution on the list in the last 12 months, - having voted at least once in the last 3 elections. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: 16 avril 2007 11:34 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Luc Faubert wrote:
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
I am accountable to my group's membership for the quality of our participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to this sub-group that -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even determining a meeting site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take place!).
Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose participants complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff power, yet have no problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to the group itself? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave such a provision out. If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it.
- Evan
Luc, I like these two conditions that you suggested: "We could require both conditions for ALSes to have the right to vote: - having made at least one worthwhile contribution on the list in the last 12 months, - having voted at least once in the last 3 elections." IF the word worthwhile was taken out and replaced with semantic (not approve or disapprove). That way, there is no room for judgment calls that go awry. The process needs to be both transparent and quantifiable. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 11:44 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Evan, Here's the complete proposal that I sent to the list in response to John's suggestion, which I hope will answer your question, as it documents specific criteria the Chair would use to decide: Policy contributions of ALSes can take 2 forms: - contributions to NARALO positions, - independent comments to ICANN (the sort you refer to, John, for which I think the evaluation method you propose is good [we could ask orgs that send independent comments to cc the NA-DISCUSS list]). An easily measurable criterion could thus be worthwhile activity on our NA-DISCUSS list in the last 12 months. The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile", examples of activity that could be considered worthwhile being at least one instance of: - a cc to the list of a comment sent directly to ICANN, - semantic contributions to discussions/positions, as opposed to just approve/disapprove. We could require both conditions for ALSes to have the right to vote: - having made at least one worthwhile contribution on the list in the last 12 months, - having voted at least once in the last 3 elections. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: 16 avril 2007 11:34 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Luc Faubert wrote:
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
I am accountable to my group's membership for the quality of our participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to this sub-group that -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even determining a meeting site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take place!).
Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose participants complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff power, yet have no problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to the group itself? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave such a provision out. If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it.
- Evan
Instead of leaving it to the sole discretion of the chair, i would prefer instead to determine participation related to a set of agreed indicators. it is much more objective. A set of possible markers to measure have already been mentioned. Personally, my view is that participation in meetings, online fora (such as this one), outreach, and more importantly - input into ICANN issues and processes would indicate that a group, or individual user is indeed active. A periodical report on "activities" should be made available, not only for those in the NA region - but for ALL the ALS. That way, one could clearly identify regions that are active, and regions where capacity development and further outreach might be useful. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 16-Apr-07, at 11:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
I am accountable to my group's membership for the quality of our participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to this sub-group that -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even determining a meeting site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take place!).
Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose participants complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff power, yet have no problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to the group itself? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave such a provision out. If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Hi Robert Excellent point. ALAC is working on criteria for evaluation of ALS applications, we can put in John's re-certification idea and I'll suggest a periodic review of all ALS activity in all regions. It would also be really good to maybe have the RALOs that are more advanced in some issues assist in capacity building for other regions that may need it. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Mr. Robert Guerra [mailto:lists@privaterra.info] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:01 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Instead of leaving it to the sole discretion of the chair, i would prefer instead to determine participation related to a set of agreed indicators. it is much more objective. A set of possible markers to measure have already been mentioned. Personally, my view is that participation in meetings, online fora (such as this one), outreach, and more importantly - input into ICANN issues and processes would indicate that a group, or individual user is indeed active. A periodical report on "activities" should be made available, not only for those in the NA region - but for ALL the ALS. That way, one could clearly identify regions that are active, and regions where capacity development and further outreach might be useful. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 16-Apr-07, at 11:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
I am accountable to my group's membership for the quality of our participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to this sub-group that -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even determining a meeting site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take place!).
Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose participants complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff power, yet have no problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to the group itself? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave such a provision out. If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
_______________________________________________ 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
Regarding tracking and monitoring of ALS participation to weed out those that arent active... how are the other Regions handling that? -MM -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Hi Michael Forwarding your question to the other regions. Hope to get responses soon. Jacqueline From: Michael Maranda [mailto:mmaranda@afcn.org] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 7:01 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Regarding tracking and monitoring of ALS participation to weed out those that arent active... how are the other Regions handling that? -MM -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: HYPERLINK "http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org"http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
Indeed, this is a swamp. That's why I suggested something that can be counted mechanically, like submissions when ICANN requests comments on proposals. Submissions need not be very long. One or two sentences saying "the current situation is fine, and the proposed changes would make it worse" are far more useful than most three page rants. R's, John
I agree with you, John. My point was to add to your criterion the cases where ALSes contributed to NARALO comments (assuming ALSes eventually agree on something and NARALO produces a comment) without necessarily sending ICANN a comment in their own name. So we would be asking our ALSes to: - either contribute at least one comment to ICANN or contribute at least once to a global comment NARALO sends to ICANN in every 12-month period, - not abstain from voting in 3 consecutive NARALO elections. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: 16 avril 2007 12:48 To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
Indeed, this is a swamp. That's why I suggested something that can be counted mechanically, like submissions when ICANN requests comments on proposals. Submissions need not be very long. One or two sentences saying "the current situation is fine, and the proposed changes would make it worse" are far more useful than most three page rants.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
On the three-pronged issues of (a) voting; (b) participation requirements; and (c) whether the RALO is a "deliberative body," I think it's important to think through exactly what requires a vote. We need votes in the next month for the ratification of the Operating Procedures and the proposed MOU with ICANN. Luc sent a very helpful email earlier today with some of the deadlines. Sometime after that, probably during the summer if not at the San Juan meeting, we need to elect two members of the ALAC from North America. After that, voting ought to be rare. The only time we are required to hold a vote is the election, once a year, for the one expiring ALAC position from North America. Personally, I haven't had the expectation that the NARALO would submit policy position statements to ICANN on behalf of the NARALO; instead, I expected that the NARALO would facilitate a dialogue among the ALSs that would allow various ALSs to express their views, if any, via common papers or individual submissions. For example, on an upcoming topic like the new whois working group, with 11 ALSs, we might have 5 organizations that are interested in following the debate but do not wish to submit anything. 3 others might decide to get together in support of common statement which they each sign. 3 others might wish to submit individual papers. As I saw it, the function of the NARALO was to apprise the ALSs of the issues and the ICANN comment deadlines and also provide a forum for discussion of the issues. The NARALO should alert ICANN and the ALAC of the fact that member organizations of the NARALO had submitted position statements. This is different, however, that having the NARALO submit statements in the name of the NARALO. This should solve some of the concerns mentioned over the last day about how we deliberate (we don't) and how we vote (rarely, once a year). The rest of the time we're exchanging information, finding common ground when we can, and facilitating the ability of each ALS to have input directly into the ICANN process, unmediated by the ALAC or the NARALO. -- Bret
Luc Faubert wrote: "The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile". Opposed to such powers in the hands of the Chair. The ICANN bylaws provide for the possibility of ALS decertification: "Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large Structure shall require a 2/3 vote of all of the members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according to procedures established by the Board." We should have the ALAC publish these decertification procedures. I, for one, certainly haven't seen them anywhere. Nick, can you arrange for these procedures to be published? --- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
I am accountable to my group's membership for the quality of our participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to this sub-group that -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even determining a meeting site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take place!).
Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose participants complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff power, yet have no problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to the group itself? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave such a provision out. If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 16-Apr-07, at 2:30 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
We should have the ALAC publish these decertification procedures. I, for one, certainly haven't seen them anywhere. Nick, can you arrange for these procedures to be published?
Danny: Nick mentioned (below) he'd be away until the 24th. regards Robert Begin forwarded message:
From: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nashton@spamcop.net> Date: April 12, 2007 5:52:47 PM EDT (CA) To: rguerra@privaterra.org Subject: On Holiday 10 - 24th April Re: ICANN Lisbon 07 - Pleasure to meet you
I will be on leave for the above period and not checking emails during my break.
For ICANN Travel -related issues: email: travel-staff@atlarge- lists.icann.org
For reimbursement for previous travel, please send your expense statement and receipts to accountspayable@icann.org, copied to travel-staff@atlarge-lists.icann.org
For other ICANN business, please contact staff@alac.icann.org
Otherwise, I will reply upon my return!
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
We should have the ALAC publish these decertification procedures. I, for one, certainly haven't seen them anywhere. Nick, can you arrange for these procedures to be published?
Unless something exciting happened in the past month, there aren't any. We had enough trouble dealing with outfits that don't meet the criteria (they belong in the NCUC) but for some unfathomable reason really really really want to be ALS, then get the ICANN ombudsman involved who doesn't understand the ALS rules either, leading to an incredible bureaucratic timesink that distracted the ALAC for months. I suggested a while ago that there should be a periodic process to recertify ALS to weed out the ones that have lost interested or disappeared, but we never did anything about that, either. R's, John
We are debating the draft evaluation criteria for alses now - the draft is on the socialtext wiki. We started at Lisbon and are continuing. Should have something final soon. The recertification idea can be brought up in the discussion... Jacqueline Quoting John L <johnl@iecc.com>:
We should have the ALAC publish these decertification procedures. I, for one, certainly haven't seen them anywhere. Nick, can you arrange for these procedures to be published?
Unless something exciting happened in the past month, there aren't any.
We had enough trouble dealing with outfits that don't meet the criteria (they belong in the NCUC) but for some unfathomable reason really really really want to be ALS, then get the ICANN ombudsman involved who doesn't understand the ALS rules either, leading to an incredible bureaucratic timesink that distracted the ALAC for months.
I suggested a while ago that there should be a periodic process to recertify ALS to weed out the ones that have lost interested or disappeared, but we never did anything about that, either.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com
Have these issues been resolved? When will they be resolved? I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted. A fundamental lack of understanding of what community networking is all about is the root of the problem. On 4/16/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
We had enough trouble dealing with outfits that don't meet the criteria (they belong in the NCUC) but for some unfathomable reason really really really want to be ALS, then get the ICANN ombudsman involved who doesn't understand the ALS rules either, leading to an incredible bureaucratic timesink that distracted the ALAC for months.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Hi Michael The ALAC is looking at the criteria (started before Lisbon, draft now & comments, should be finalized soon) If you check the agenda for the last ALAC teleconf on the wiki, you should see the draft documents. Can’t find the link now… I understand why people want to be in ALAC and RALOs rather than in NCUC sometimes, but we need to fix the criteria to be able to sort this out. I am hoping to have a final document incorporating all comments by the May ALAC teleconference. Jacqueline From: Michael Maranda [mailto:mmaranda@afcn.org] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 7:05 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Have these issues been resolved? When will they be resolved? I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted. A fundamental lack of understanding of what community networking is all about is the root of the problem. On 4/16/07, John L <HYPERLINK "mailto:johnl@iecc.com"johnl@iecc.com> wrote: We had enough trouble dealing with outfits that don't meet the criteria (they belong in the NCUC) but for some unfathomable reason really really really want to be ALS, then get the ICANN ombudsman involved who doesn't understand the ALS rules either, leading to an incredible bureaucratic timesink that distracted the ALAC for months. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: HYPERLINK "http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org"http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
Have these issues been resolved? When will they be resolved? I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted. A fundamental lack of understanding of what community networking is all about is the root of the problem.
No, the problem is that the ICANN bylaws make it quite clear what the rules to be an ALS are, and they don't meet them, not having individual members. They should join the NCUC where they will have a lot more influence and meet lots of interesting people. The phrase "community networking" appears nowhere in ICANN's bylaws, so whatever it is, it's irrelevant to being an ALS.
On 4/16/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
We had enough trouble dealing with outfits that don't meet the criteria (they belong in the NCUC) but for some unfathomable reason really really really want to be ALS, then get the ICANN ombudsman involved who doesn't understand the ALS rules either, leading to an incredible bureaucratic timesink that distracted the ALAC for months.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Have these issues been resolved? When will they be resolved?
Beats me, the ombudsman sent an error riddled report to the board which is supposed to do something about it. Perhaps Vittorio knows where it stands.
I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted.
Nobody's disparaging their interest in involvement. Why are you bringing up this red herring? The problem is that they're asking to join the wrong piece of ICANN. If they wanted to join the GAC or the IP constituency, they wouldn't qualify there, either.
We had enough trouble dealing with outfits that don't meet the criteria (they belong in the NCUC) but for some unfathomable reason really really really want to be ALS, then get the ICANN ombudsman involved who doesn't understand the ALS rules either, leading to an incredible bureaucratic timesink that distracted the ALAC for months.
R's, John
John L ha scritto:
Have these issues been resolved? When will they be resolved?
Beats me, the ombudsman sent an error riddled report to the board which is supposed to do something about it. Perhaps Vittorio knows where it stands.
The Board has to provide an answer to his recommendations by May 12 - that's where it is now.
I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted.
Nobody's disparaging their interest in involvement. Why are you bringing up this red herring? The problem is that they're asking to join the wrong piece of ICANN. If they wanted to join the GAC or the IP constituency, they wouldn't qualify there, either.
I'll take this de-lurking opportunity to explain that ICANN is in the process of reviewing the GNSO, and that the external reviewers pointed out that there might be some overlap of interests between the NCUC and the individual users represented through the At Large mechanism. The fact that several orgs-of-orgs now want to join the At Large might be another sign that there is an issue there, and the distinction between the two groups (which are in very different places in the ICANN structure anyway) might be revised, blurred or even eliminated. Basically, the principle of constituency building at ICANN has always been "you pick where you belong", until some constituencies were somewhat captured by the first comers and started to look for any kind of excuse to refuse further members. Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes. At this point in time, personally I don't think that it makes much of a difference whether an organization has individual members or not, provided that it is clear that in the end it works to the advantage of individual users. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Interesting point "Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes." If we were to say "No" to the orgs-of-orgs then we are actually encouraging them to have each of their member organizations sign up individually which would give them an extraordinary increase to their weight in votes. Not to mention how much extra it will cost ICANN to bring each of those member organizations to any in face meetings. It seems to me that if those member orgs are all representing individuals then we should let the orgs-of-orgs in. It still enables us to do the work we are attempting to do. I would think that we should be inclusive rather than exclusive. Just my two cents for what its worth. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:44 AM To: John L Cc: Michael Maranda; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items John L ha scritto:
Have these issues been resolved? When will they be resolved?
Beats me, the ombudsman sent an error riddled report to the board which is supposed to do something about it. Perhaps Vittorio knows where it stands.
The Board has to provide an answer to his recommendations by May 12 - that's where it is now.
I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted.
Nobody's disparaging their interest in involvement. Why are you bringing up this red herring? The problem is that they're asking to join the wrong piece of ICANN. If they wanted to join the GAC or the IP constituency, they wouldn't qualify there, either.
I'll take this de-lurking opportunity to explain that ICANN is in the process of reviewing the GNSO, and that the external reviewers pointed out that there might be some overlap of interests between the NCUC and the individual users represented through the At Large mechanism. The fact that several orgs-of-orgs now want to join the At Large might be another sign that there is an issue there, and the distinction between the two groups (which are in very different places in the ICANN structure anyway) might be revised, blurred or even eliminated. Basically, the principle of constituency building at ICANN has always been "you pick where you belong", until some constituencies were somewhat captured by the first comers and started to look for any kind of excuse to refuse further members. Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes. At this point in time, personally I don't think that it makes much of a difference whether an organization has individual members or not, provided that it is clear that in the end it works to the advantage of individual users. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
I agree. And who is to say whether an organization that says it is open to individuals truly is living up to that? I have tried to contact certain organizations and had my email bounced back as undeliverable. It doesnt make sense to me that they are there to address issues and involve a constituency when they dont maintain basic communication/contact information on their sites. To say something is a red herring is just another tactic of dismissal and arrogance, and it sets a very negative tone for this list and really should be called out. On 4/17/07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Interesting point "Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes."
If we were to say "No" to the orgs-of-orgs then we are actually encouraging them to have each of their member organizations sign up individually which would give them an extraordinary increase to their weight in votes. Not to mention how much extra it will cost ICANN to bring each of those member organizations to any in face meetings. It seems to me that if those member orgs are all representing individuals then we should let the orgs-of-orgs in. It still enables us to do the work we are attempting to do.
I would think that we should be inclusive rather than exclusive.
Just my two cents for what its worth.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:44 AM To: John L Cc: Michael Maranda; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
John L ha scritto:
Have these issues been resolved? When will they be resolved?
Beats me, the ombudsman sent an error riddled report to the board which is supposed to do something about it. Perhaps Vittorio knows where it stands.
The Board has to provide an answer to his recommendations by May 12 - that's where it is now.
I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted.
Nobody's disparaging their interest in involvement. Why are you bringing up this red herring? The problem is that they're asking to join the wrong piece of ICANN. If they wanted to join the GAC or the IP constituency, they wouldn't qualify there, either.
I'll take this de-lurking opportunity to explain that ICANN is in the process of reviewing the GNSO, and that the external reviewers pointed out that there might be some overlap of interests between the NCUC and the individual users represented through the At Large mechanism. The fact that several orgs-of-orgs now want to join the At Large might be another sign that there is an issue there, and the distinction between the two groups (which are in very different places in the ICANN structure anyway) might be revised, blurred or even eliminated.
Basically, the principle of constituency building at ICANN has always been "you pick where you belong", until some constituencies were somewhat captured by the first comers and started to look for any kind of excuse to refuse further members. Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes. At this point in time, personally I don't think that it makes much of a difference whether an organization has individual members or not, provided that it is clear that in the end it works to the advantage of individual users. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
_______________________________________________ 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
I sent this (without any response I should add to the "governance" list... I think it may be relevent here as well... I'm wondering what it does to the issue of "Internet Governance" especially issues for example concerning "individual users", if we recognize that almost certainly a majority of the world's Internet users don't individually "own" their own access and that a very large number of users in fact access the Internet through some sort of community/collectively utilized facilities (cybercafes) or collectively owned/managed facilities (Telecentres)? A few other questions that come immediately to mind (and I don't' have ready answers) * what would be the process of giving (privately owned) cybercafe users some opportunity to participate in Internet governance--the vast majority of users in China for example * what would be the process of integrating the governing structures for communally managed (publically and NGO funded) telecentres into Internet Governance--the vast majority in India for exasmple * what is the inter-relationship to be between national regulatory and administrative management regimes which are "governance" intermediaries between a global internet and local users and globally oriented Internet governance regimes MG -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Maranda Sent: April 17, 2007 6:24 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items I agree. And who is to say whether an organization that says it is open to individuals truly is living up to that? I have tried to contact certain organizations and had my email bounced back as undeliverable. It doesnt make sense to me that they are there to address issues and involve a constituency when they dont maintain basic communication/contact information on their sites. To say something is a red herring is just another tactic of dismissal and arrogance, and it sets a very negative tone for this list and really should be called out. On 4/17/07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote: Interesting point "Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes." If we were to say "No" to the orgs-of-orgs then we are actually encouraging them to have each of their member organizations sign up individually which would give them an extraordinary increase to their weight in votes. Not to mention how much extra it will cost ICANN to bring each of those member organizations to any in face meetings. It seems to me that if those member orgs are all representing individuals then we should let the orgs-of-orgs in. It still enables us to do the work we are attempting to do. I would think that we should be inclusive rather than exclusive. Just my two cents for what its worth. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:44 AM To: John L Cc: Michael Maranda; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items John L ha scritto:
Have these issues been resolved? When will they be resolved?
Beats me, the ombudsman sent an error riddled report to the board which is supposed to do something about it. Perhaps Vittorio knows where it stands.
The Board has to provide an answer to his recommendations by May 12 - that's where it is now.
I dont think disparaging their interest in involvement is warranted.
Nobody's disparaging their interest in involvement. Why are you bringing up this red herring? The problem is that they're asking to join the wrong piece of ICANN. If they wanted to join the GAC or the IP constituency, they wouldn't qualify there, either.
I'll take this de-lurking opportunity to explain that ICANN is in the process of reviewing the GNSO, and that the external reviewers pointed out that there might be some overlap of interests between the NCUC and the individual users represented through the At Large mechanism. The fact that several orgs-of-orgs now want to join the At Large might be another sign that there is an issue there, and the distinction between the two groups (which are in very different places in the ICANN structure anyway) might be revised, blurred or even eliminated. Basically, the principle of constituency building at ICANN has always been "you pick where you belong", until some constituencies were somewhat captured by the first comers and started to look for any kind of excuse to refuse further members. Moreover, the "no org of orgs" criteria for the At Large was designed in 2002, when everyone was obsessed with voting and people were afraid that orgs-of-orgs would try to subscribe multiple times to increase their weight in votes. At this point in time, personally I don't think that it makes much of a difference whether an organization has individual members or not, provided that it is clear that in the end it works to the advantage of individual users. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-list s> .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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> http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org !DSPAM:2676,4624cb80138748323210086!
Hello all, I proposed to the certified ALSes that Bret Fausett be our NARALO interim Chair and help us go through our formation steps. 9 of the 11 ALSes voted and all of them supported the proposal. Bret has accepted to do be our interim Chair. I am grateful to him and look forward to cooperating with him, as I hope we all will, to make this NARALO a reality. 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 <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>
Thanks for your votes of confidence! Let's build a RALO. Bret _____ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc Faubert Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:50 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Interim Chair Hello all, I proposed to the certified ALSes that Bret Fausett be our NARALO interim Chair and help us go through our formation steps. 9 of the 11 ALSes voted and all of them supported the proposal. Bret has accepted to do be our interim Chair. I am grateful to him and look forward to cooperating with him, as I hope we all will, to make this NARALO a reality. 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 <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>
Congratulations Bret! I’m sure you’ll guide this process well and fairly! Jacqueline From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 11:50 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Interim Chair Hello all, I proposed to the certified ALSes that Bret Fausett be our NARALO interim Chair and help us go through our formation steps. 9 of the 11 ALSes voted and all of them supported the proposal. Bret has accepted to do be our interim Chair. I am grateful to him and look forward to cooperating with him, as I hope we all will, to make this NARALO a reality. Regards, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 HYPERLINK "http://www.lucfaubert.com/"www.LucFaubert.com HYPERLINK "http://www.lucfaubert.com/blog"www.LucFaubert.com/blog HYPERLINK "http://www.isoc.qc.ca/"www.isoc.qc.ca HYPERLINK "http://www.ccig.ca/"www.ccig.ca HYPERLINK "http://www.maillons.qc.ca/"www.maillons.qc.ca -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
Milton Mueller (on the governance list): "I wish I could convey how amusing you all sound, lost in your metaphors of "new" kaleidoscopic realities. In the meantime, the same old power holders, using the same old mechanisms and a few subtle new ones, are running the game. And some of us in civil society are soooooo easily co-opted by being invited onto consultative mechanisms like WGIG or ALAC that have no effect on the actual regime but somewhow make people feel important and thereby transform them into enthusiastic free workrs and sometimes apologists for the institutions that have duped them." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[ Subject line changed to reflect the diversion of this sub-thread ] Danny Younger wrote:
Milton Mueller (on the governance list):
"I wish I could convey how amusing you all sound, lost in your metaphors of "new" kaleidoscopic realities. In the meantime, the same old power holders, using the same old mechanisms and a few subtle new ones, are running the game. And some of us in civil society are soooooo easily co-opted by being invited onto consultative mechanisms like WGIG or ALAC that have no effect on the actual regime but somewhow make people feel important and thereby transform them into enthusiastic free workrs and sometimes apologists for the institutions that have duped them."
I'm certainly glad at least that we provide amusement to someone, it's better than providing nothing at all. This kind of whining serves no purpose, unless it's to tell us that we're just pawns and that only Certain Sage Observers of Civil Society possess the insight on how to free us from the Evil ICANN Empire. I'm amazed that there are enough resources on the ICANN mailserver to accommodate the ego and condescension in that message. Please stop adding to the noise with patronizing trash like this. If you truly agree with what Milton said, Danny, you wouldn't be here because this is all apparently a waste of our time according to him. I'm not yet ready to write off the process, despite the early chaos, though posts like this make it tougher to get to the real things we need to deal with. The headaches of participating here, so far, outweigh any sense of importance I could possibly extract from it. At least ICANN staffers don't berate the people they're trying to enlighten. Cheers, - Evan
Frankly, I have girl-friends that are going through bad break-ups that whine less than what I see on this list. I have never been on a list before that shows such a lack of professional behaviour. Its really quite amazing. Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:52 PM To: Danny Younger Cc: 'NA Discuss' Subject: [NA-Discuss] The Tyranny of ICANN, redux [ Subject line changed to reflect the diversion of this sub-thread ] Danny Younger wrote:
Milton Mueller (on the governance list):
"I wish I could convey how amusing you all sound, lost in your metaphors of "new" kaleidoscopic realities. In the meantime, the same old power holders, using the same old mechanisms and a few subtle new ones, are running the game. And some of us in civil society are soooooo easily co-opted by being invited onto consultative mechanisms like WGIG or ALAC that have no effect on the actual regime but somewhow make people feel important and thereby transform them into enthusiastic free workrs and sometimes apologists for the institutions that have duped them."
I'm certainly glad at least that we provide amusement to someone, it's better than providing nothing at all. This kind of whining serves no purpose, unless it's to tell us that we're just pawns and that only Certain Sage Observers of Civil Society possess the insight on how to free us from the Evil ICANN Empire. I'm amazed that there are enough resources on the ICANN mailserver to accommodate the ego and condescension in that message. Please stop adding to the noise with patronizing trash like this. If you truly agree with what Milton said, Danny, you wouldn't be here because this is all apparently a waste of our time according to him. I'm not yet ready to write off the process, despite the early chaos, though posts like this make it tougher to get to the real things we need to deal with. The headaches of participating here, so far, outweigh any sense of importance I could possibly extract from it. At least ICANN staffers don't berate the people they're trying to enlighten. Cheers, - Evan _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Wow - this is a very short bit out of a very very long discussion, and (yet again) out of context. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:05 PM To: 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Milton Mueller (on the governance list): "I wish I could convey how amusing you all sound, lost in your metaphors of "new" kaleidoscopic realities. In the meantime, the same old power holders, using the same old mechanisms and a few subtle new ones, are running the game. And some of us in civil society are soooooo easily co-opted by being invited onto consultative mechanisms like WGIG or ALAC that have no effect on the actual regime but somewhow make people feel important and thereby transform them into enthusiastic free workrs and sometimes apologists for the institutions that have duped them." __________________________________________________ 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
If we were to say "No" to the orgs-of-orgs then we are actually encouraging them to have each of their member organizations sign up individually which would give them an extraordinary increase to their weight in votes.
It's hard for me to have much sympathy for that viewpoint. One of the problems with the ALS model is that different ALS already vary vastly in size. As an example, the candidate ALS in Yonkers has over 7 million members, which is more than 20 times the entire population of Nunavut. That doesn't make any ALS more worthy than any other, but it makes concerns about stuffing the ballot box look pretty silly. The other thing is that the no orgs-of-orgs language is in the ICANN bylaws. I entirely agree that it is arbitrary, and there are good reasons that they might want to change it. The bylaws are not written in stone, and we (the ALAC) have gotten the board to change language that didn't work in the past. But rather than doing that, does anyone really think that it is a good idea simply to ignore bylaws that we don't like? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Robert, The Internet Commerce Association used to be the Internet Traffic Association. Some of the founding members are Name Administration Inc., Internet REIT Rick Schwartz, Howard Neu and Sedo. Apparently their agenda is to promote domain name monetization efforts. To see an example of what they probably believe is OK, have a look at http://www.loffs.org/verizon-vs-ireit/verizon-ireit-exhibit5.pdf They probably view themselves as legitimate domainers; I tend to view this type of ilk as typosquatters that need to be slapped down hard. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I tend to view this type of ilk as typosquatters that need to be slapped down hard.
Then shouldn't we welcome the participation of the Internet Commerce Association as a potential member so we can discuss your concerns with them directly? The ALAC is the place where accreditation questions arise, so my personal preference is to leave eligibility issues to them and welcome anyone here who has applied as an ALS or is thinking of applying. If the ALAC determines an organization doesn't meet the criteria, I'm sure they'll move on. Bret
I've updated parag. 16 of our OP to: 16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections, or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy (either directly to ICANN or through collaboration towards a common NARALO comment) in 12 consecutive months, a vote of not less than 70% of the North American At-Large Structures then accredited will rescind its member status within the NARALO. The Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS. I hope this captures the wishes of all. Thanks Danny for pointing out the parag. concerning de-certification in ICANN bylaws. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 16 avril 2007 14:30 To: Evan Leibovitch; Luc Faubert Cc: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Nick Ashton-Hart Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Luc Faubert wrote: "The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Opposed to such powers in the hands of the Chair. The ICANN bylaws provide for the possibility of ALS decertification:
"Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large Structure shall require a 2/3 vote of all of the members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according to procedures established by the Board."
We should have the ALAC publish these decertification procedures. I, for one, certainly haven't seen them anywhere. Nick, can you arrange for these procedures to be published?
--- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
I am accountable to my group's membership for the quality of our participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to this sub-group that -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even determining a meeting site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take place!).
Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose participants complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff power, yet have no problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to the group itself? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave such a provision out. If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Luc Faubert wrote:
16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections, or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy (either directly to ICANN or through collaboration towards a common NARALO comment) in 12 consecutive months, a vote of not less than 70% of the North American At-Large Structures then accredited will rescind its member status within the NARALO. The Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS.
I hope this captures the wishes of all. Sorry, Luc, it does not.
I explicitly request the removal of the phrase "either directly to ICANN or" and removal of the brackets. Is a body wants to bypass NARALO and go directly to ICANN that is its prerogative. However, such a body has no business in NARALO if it contributes nothing; its direct submissions do nothing to benefit the collaborative elements that are the RALO's reason for being. As far as the NARALO itself is concerned, a North American based ALS that does everything directly with ICANN is of no more benefit than an ALS that drops out of sight. The RALO process was designed to assist smaller, multi-purpose ALSs to participate, and that means shared ideas between newcomers and old-timers, between big and small. Orgs that shun this process should not be rewarded for such selfishness by being able to claim they're part of a collaborative process. Of course, this begs the question of why a group that consistently bypasses the RALO would want to be associated with it in the first place.) - - Evan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGJkWBB6WWYxnsgmwRAoFwAJ9EtH9yDV4SbzicdWkMuIznu+gLNgCfZRTx 1uA0b+80fVYl54skMrvR+K4= =BN2i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Evan, I have no objection to the change you propose. Let's see what the others think, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/> ________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: 18 avril 2007 12:21 To: Luc Faubert Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Luc Faubert wrote: > 16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections, or does > not contribute a comment on ICANN policy (either directly to ICANN or > through collaboration towards a common NARALO comment) in 12 consecutive > months, a vote of not less than 70% of the North American At-Large > Structures then accredited will rescind its member status within the > NARALO. The Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for > de-certification of that ALS. > > I hope this captures the wishes of all. Sorry, Luc, it does not. I explicitly request the removal of the phrase "either directly to ICANN or" and removal of the brackets. Is a body wants to bypass NARALO and go directly to ICANN that is its prerogative. However, such a body has no business in NARALO if it contributes nothing; its direct submissions do nothing to benefit the collaborative elements that are the RALO's reason for being. As far as the NARALO itself is concerned, a North American based ALS that does everything directly with ICANN is of no more benefit than an ALS that drops out of sight. The RALO process was designed to assist smaller, multi-purpose ALSs to participate, and that means shared ideas between newcomers and old-timers, between big and small. Orgs that shun this process should not be rewarded for such selfishness by being able to claim they're part of a collaborative process. Of course, this begs the question of why a group that consistently bypasses the RALO would want to be associated with it in the first place.) - - Evan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGJkWBB6WWYxnsgmwRAoFwAJ9EtH9yDV4SbzicdWkMuIznu+gLNgCfZRTx 1uA0b+80fVYl54skMrvR+K4= =BN2i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I would agree to that. Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:21 PM To: Luc Faubert Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Luc Faubert wrote:
16. When an ALS does not vote in
3 consecutive NARALO elections, or does
not contribute a comment on ICANN policy (either directly to
ICANN or
through collaboration towards a common NARALO comment) in 12
consecutive
months, a vote of not less than 70% of the North American
At-Large
Structures then accredited will rescind its member status within
the
NARALO. The Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for
de-certification of that ALS.
I hope this captures the wishes of all. Sorry, Luc, it does not.
I explicitly request the removal of the phrase "either directly to ICANN or" and removal of the brackets. Is a body wants to bypass NARALO and go directly to ICANN that is its prerogative. However, such a body has no business in NARALO if it contributes nothing; its direct submissions do nothing to benefit the collaborative elements that are the RALO's reason for being. As far as the NARALO itself is concerned, a North American based ALS that does everything directly with ICANN is of no more benefit than an ALS that drops out of sight. The RALO process was designed to assist smaller, multi-purpose ALSs to participate, and that means shared ideas between newcomers and old-timers, between big and small. Orgs that shun this process should not be rewarded for such selfishness by being able to claim they're part of a collaborative process. Of course, this begs the question of why a group that consistently bypasses the RALO would want to be associated with it in the first place.) - - Evan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGJkWBB6WWYxnsgmwRAoFwAJ9EtH9yDV4SbzicdWkMuIznu+gLNgCfZRTx 1uA0b+80fVYl54skMrvR+K4= =BN2i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
We had a problem in the ALAC last year with people ceasing their participation without withdrawing. They counted toward quorum requirements but didn't vote, which meant that the ALAC couldn't approve or disapprove any applications. So in addition to the language below, perhaps continued non-participation, however we define it, could lead to automatic removal, without any votes. What could happen is that more than 30% of the ALSs stop participating and then we can't vote them out because their non-participation has effectively prevented us from obtaining a 70% vote. This is probably a realistic concern when we have only 11 AlSs. It wouldn't take much to tie us up.
I've updated parag. 16 of our OP to:
16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections, or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy (either directly to ICANN or through collaboration towards a common NARALO comment) in 12 consecutive months, a vote of not less than 70% of the North American At-Large Structures then accredited will rescind its member status within the NARALO. The Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS.
Good point, Bret. We could replace all instances of: "not less than 70% of the North American At-Large Structures then accredited" by "not less than 70% of active NARALO member At-Large Structures" and change parag. 16 to (including change requested by Evan but which eliminates John's idea [John, are you OK with this?]): 16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the NARALO discussion list in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. A vote of not less than 70% of the active North American At-Large Structures will rescind its member status within the NARALO and the Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS. If the vote is not conclusive, then the At-Large Structure regains its active member status within NARALO. The last 2 sentences probably need some rewording by an English speaker. I hope you get my point, _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: 18 avril 2007 13:29 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Danny Younger; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification
We had a problem in the ALAC last year with people ceasing their participation without withdrawing. They counted toward quorum requirements but didn't vote, which meant that the ALAC couldn't approve or disapprove any applications. So in addition to the language below, perhaps continued non-participation, however we define it, could lead to automatic removal, without any votes. What could happen is that more than 30% of the ALSs stop participating and then we can't vote them out because their non-participation has effectively prevented us from obtaining a 70% vote. This is probably a realistic concern when we have only 11 AlSs. It wouldn't take much to tie us up.
I've updated parag. 16 of our OP to:
16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections, or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy (either directly to ICANN or through collaboration towards a common NARALO comment) in 12 consecutive months, a vote of not less than 70% of the North American At-Large Structures then accredited will rescind its member status within the NARALO. The Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS.
Luc Faubert wrote:
16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the NARALO discussion list in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. A vote of not less than 70% of the active North American At-Large Structures will rescind its member status within the NARALO and the Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS. If the vote is not conclusive, then the At-Large Structure regains its active member status within NARALO.
Your English is fine, Luc. I have no problem with the last sentence, but it just seems redundant. Otherwise I'm fine with it as-is. - Evan
The last sentence is necessary to prevent ALSes being in limbo if the following happens: - an ALS loses its active status and voting rights because of non-participation, - the vote of active ALSes does not reach the 70% threshold to revoke the inactive ALS's membership within NARALO. In this case, we need a way to reinstate their active member status and voting rights. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: 18 avril 2007 14:31 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Bret Fausett; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification
Luc Faubert wrote:
16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the NARALO discussion list in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. A vote of not less than 70% of the active North American At-Large Structures will rescind its member status within the NARALO and the Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS. If the vote is not conclusive, then the At-Large Structure regains its active member status within NARALO.
Your English is fine, Luc. I have no problem with the last sentence, but it just seems redundant. Otherwise I'm fine with it as-is.
- Evan
Hello all, 1. I've updated the text for parag. 16 on de-certification of ALSes to: 16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the NARALO discussion list in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. The ALS may regain its voting rights and active status if within the next year it votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS. There's no more voting to make things simpler -- and we give the guys a chance to repent! 2. Any other suggestions for changes/improvements to our OP? As for me, the only thing I don't see in there is how we will select the Secretariat. Should we put something in the OP concerning this point? _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc Faubert Sent: 18 avril 2007 14:37 To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification
The last sentence is necessary to prevent ALSes being in limbo if the following happens: - an ALS loses its active status and voting rights because of non-participation, - the vote of active ALSes does not reach the 70% threshold to revoke the inactive ALS's membership within NARALO.
In this case, we need a way to reinstate their active member status and voting rights.
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: 18 avril 2007 14:31 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Bret Fausett; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification
Luc Faubert wrote:
16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the NARALO discussion list in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. A vote of not less than 70% of the active North American At-Large Structures will rescind its member status within the NARALO and the Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS. If the vote is not conclusive, then the At-Large Structure regains its active member status within NARALO.
Your English is fine, Luc. I have no problem with the last sentence, but it just seems redundant. Otherwise I'm fine with it as-is.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to discourage their direct contribution. I know we don't want to be structure-heavy, but what about a bicameral system: one "house" of ALS reps and just 2 individuals, as described; the other a gathering of individuals (the individual members of ALSs and anyone else who wants to join)? It would be entirely possible that the organizational "house" would tend toward consensus, while the individual "house" brought out the diversity of individuals' interests. --Wendy Luc Faubert wrote:
Hello all,
1. I've updated the text for parag. 16 on de-certification of ALSes to:
16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the NARALO discussion list in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. The ALS may regain its voting rights and active status if within the next year it votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS.
There's no more voting to make things simpler -- and we give the guys a chance to repent!
2. Any other suggestions for changes/improvements to our OP?
As for me, the only thing I don't see in there is how we will select the Secretariat. Should we put something in the OP concerning this point?
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy, I'm intrigued. How would we implement voting or consensus polling in such a context? When we look at the model we're going for, I guess all policy discussions will happen on our Discuss list which is open to all, individuals and non-certified orgs included. This gives everybody direct input into policy discussions within NARALO. Activities reserved to certified ALS reps and the 2 reps for individuals are : - voting for the Chair, - choosing the 2 ALAC reps, - setting up task forces, - adopting/changing the OP and MOU. Is this not reasonable? _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 19 avril 2007 17:08 To: Luc Faubert Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to discourage their direct contribution.
I know we don't want to be structure-heavy, but what about a bicameral system: one "house" of ALS reps and just 2 individuals, as described; the other a gathering of individuals (the individual members of ALSs and anyone else who wants to join)? It would be entirely possible that the organizational "house" would tend toward consensus, while the individual "house" brought out the diversity of individuals' interests.
--Wendy
Luc Faubert wrote:
Hello all,
1. I've updated the text for parag. 16 on de-certification of ALSes to:
16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the NARALO discussion list in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. The ALS may regain its voting rights and active status if within the next year it votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS.
There's no more voting to make things simpler -- and we give the guys a chance to repent!
2. Any other suggestions for changes/improvements to our OP?
As for me, the only thing I don't see in there is how we will select the Secretariat. Should we put something in the OP concerning this point?
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to discourage their direct contribution.
I'd prefer to stay away from hypotheticals and stay in the realm of what's real. Offer a single name of an individual who really wanted to get involved but couldn't find any avenue to do so, and I'll give you a name of someone who didn't really try. ICANN is a thick bureaucracy. In reality, few people will take it on their own initiative to get involved; the disincentives to participation are in the effort needed to pick up ICANN culture, not in the lack of avenues for expression. And those people who do want to get involved would be welcomed with open arms by groups like mine, where active participants can not only express their own POV but help to generate interest in many others. Please, let's not get caught up in symbolic gestures, actions designed to "send a message" to some amorphous audience without actually getting anything done. And let's especially not get caught up in "speaking up for those who want to but can't", when 1) we have no idea whether we're really expressing their interests 2) we haven't established whether any such people actually exist Of course, one can get into the "we can't find them because they have no voice" logic loop, but that resembles a conspiracy theory more than a real cause for action. - Evan
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to discourage their direct contribution.
I'd prefer to stay away from hypotheticals and stay in the realm of what's real. Offer a single name of an individual who really wanted to get involved but couldn't find any avenue to do so, and I'll give you a name of someone who didn't really try.
Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs, is rejected when he tries to apply as an individual, yet might plausibly want a say in the selection of ALAC members. Students (law, computer science), not members of organizations that are proper ALS candidates, but interested in the subject, would be great individual participants, especially if they found areas where their research could contribute to ICANN discussions. Why should they face the hurdle of finding and joining yet another organization in order to participate in the ALAC and NomCom selections? --Wendy
ICANN is a thick bureaucracy. In reality, few people will take it on their own initiative to get involved; the disincentives to participation are in the effort needed to pick up ICANN culture, not in the lack of avenues for expression. And those people who do want to get involved would be welcomed with open arms by groups like mine, where active participants can not only express their own POV but help to generate interest in many others.
Please, let's not get caught up in symbolic gestures, actions designed to "send a message" to some amorphous audience without actually getting anything done. And let's especially not get caught up in "speaking up for those who want to but can't", when
1) we have no idea whether we're really expressing their interests 2) we haven't established whether any such people actually exist
Of course, one can get into the "we can't find them because they have no voice" logic loop, but that resembles a conspiracy theory more than a real cause for action.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs, is rejected when he tries to apply as an individual, yet might plausibly want a say in the selection of ALAC members.
And when we get from "might plausibly" into an actual story of someone who tried and was indeed explicitly rejected from all available avenues, we can come back to this. We have enough headaches accommodating the constituents already here, let alone hypothetical examples that may indeed never really happen. Let's at least get to crawling before complaining about not being able to sprint. - Evan
Evan, My application for ALS status has already been denied by the ALAC. Further, the organization with which I am currently affiliated (ISOC-NY) is a member of the NCUC whose Charter deems ineligible for membership those organizations that either provide services under contract with ICANN or provide services under an MOU with ICANN -- see http://www.ncdnhc.org/current_charter.htm As such my chapter will likely not join the ALAC as doing so might mean forfeiting their more valuable membership within the NCUC. Now I get the impression that you seek to deny me full participatory rights on an equal footing with my peers... Let's hope that I have misunderstood your position. Best regards, Danny --- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs, is rejected when he tries to apply as an individual, yet might plausibly want a say in the selection of ALAC members.
And when we get from "might plausibly" into an actual story of someone who tried and was indeed explicitly rejected from all available avenues, we can come back to this.
We have enough headaches accommodating the constituents already here, let alone hypothetical examples that may indeed never really happen.
Let's at least get to crawling before complaining about not being able to sprint.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Wendy, If Danny becomes one of the 2 individual reps (and I think he could be a real good one), he will have a voice in all votes, including the ones for our ALAC reps. He will also be counted when we poll for consensus, _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 19 avril 2007 18:33 To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to discourage their direct contribution.
I'd prefer to stay away from hypotheticals and stay in the realm of what's real. Offer a single name of an individual who really wanted to get involved but couldn't find any avenue to do so, and I'll give you a name of someone who didn't really try.
Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs, is rejected when he tries to apply as an individual, yet might plausibly want a say in the selection of ALAC members.
Students (law, computer science), not members of organizations that are proper ALS candidates, but interested in the subject, would be great individual participants, especially if they found areas where their research could contribute to ICANN discussions. Why should they face the hurdle of finding and joining yet another organization in order to participate in the ALAC and NomCom selections?
--Wendy
ICANN is a thick bureaucracy. In reality, few people will
take it on
their own initiative to get involved; the disincentives to participation are in the effort needed to pick up ICANN culture, not in the lack of avenues for expression. And those people who do want to get involved would be welcomed with open arms by groups like mine, where active participants can not only express their own POV but help to generate interest in many others.
Please, let's not get caught up in symbolic gestures, actions designed to "send a message" to some amorphous audience without actually getting anything done. And let's especially not get caught up in "speaking up for those who want to but can't", when
1) we have no idea whether we're really expressing their interests 2) we haven't established whether any such people actually exist
Of course, one can get into the "we can't find them because they have no voice" logic loop, but that resembles a conspiracy theory more than a real cause for action.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis
ts.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
I was asked for _some_ examples, not an exhaustive list. Saying that one person (or two) are accounted for fails to address the concern that most are not. --Wendy Luc Faubert wrote:
Wendy,
If Danny becomes one of the 2 individual reps (and I think he could be a real good one), he will have a voice in all votes, including the ones for our ALAC reps. He will also be counted when we poll for consensus,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 19 avril 2007 18:33 To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to discourage their direct contribution.
I'd prefer to stay away from hypotheticals and stay in the realm of what's real. Offer a single name of an individual who really wanted to get involved but couldn't find any avenue to do so, and I'll give you a name of someone who didn't really try. Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs, is rejected when he tries to apply as an individual, yet might plausibly want a say in the selection of ALAC members.
Students (law, computer science), not members of organizations that are proper ALS candidates, but interested in the subject, would be great individual participants, especially if they found areas where their research could contribute to ICANN discussions. Why should they face the hurdle of finding and joining yet another organization in order to participate in the ALAC and NomCom selections?
--Wendy
ICANN is a thick bureaucracy. In reality, few people will take it on their own initiative to get involved; the disincentives to participation are in the effort needed to pick up ICANN culture, not in the lack of avenues for expression. And those people who do want to get involved would be welcomed with open arms by groups like mine, where active participants can not only express their own POV but help to generate interest in many others.
Please, let's not get caught up in symbolic gestures, actions designed to "send a message" to some amorphous audience without actually getting anything done. And let's especially not get caught up in "speaking up for those who want to but can't", when
1) we have no idea whether we're really expressing their interests 2) we haven't established whether any such people actually exist
Of course, one can get into the "we can't find them because they have no voice" logic loop, but that resembles a conspiracy theory more than a real cause for action.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis
ts.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy, I guess I still don't understand exactly what you're proposing. Are you proposing that all individuals be able to vote? _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 19 avril 2007 22:32 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
I was asked for _some_ examples, not an exhaustive list. Saying that one person (or two) are accounted for fails to address the concern that most are not.
--Wendy
Luc Faubert wrote:
Wendy,
If Danny becomes one of the 2 individual reps (and I think he could be a real good one), he will have a voice in all votes, including the ones for our ALAC reps. He will also be counted when we poll for consensus,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 19 avril 2007 18:33 To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to discourage their direct contribution.
I'd prefer to stay away from hypotheticals and stay in the realm of what's real. Offer a single name of an individual who really wanted to get involved but couldn't find any avenue to do so, and I'll give you a name of someone who didn't really try. Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs, is rejected when he tries to apply as an individual, yet might plausibly want a say in the selection of ALAC members.
Students (law, computer science), not members of organizations that are proper ALS candidates, but interested in the subject, would be great individual participants, especially if they found areas where their research could contribute to ICANN discussions. Why should they face the hurdle of finding and joining yet another organization in order to participate in the ALAC and NomCom selections?
--Wendy
ICANN is a thick bureaucracy. In reality, few people will take it on their own initiative to get involved; the disincentives to participation are in the effort needed to pick up ICANN culture, not in the lack of avenues for expression. And those people who do want to get involved would be welcomed with open arms by groups like mine, where active participants can not only express their own POV but help to generate interest in many others.
Please, let's not get caught up in symbolic gestures, actions designed to "send a message" to some amorphous audience without actually getting anything done. And let's especially not get caught up in "speaking up for those who want to but can't", when
1) we have no idea whether we're really expressing their interests 2) we haven't established whether any such people actually exist
Of course, one can get into the "we can't find them because they have no voice" logic loop, but that resembles a conspiracy theory more than a real cause for action.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-li
s
ts.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
I'm suggesting that we should have two decision-making components: one voting/consensus forum in which individuals can participate directly, and another, the GA, in which they are represented by a few of their number and through ALS representatives. --Wendy Luc Faubert wrote:
Wendy,
I guess I still don't understand exactly what you're proposing. Are you proposing that all individuals be able to vote?
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 19 avril 2007 22:32 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
I was asked for _some_ examples, not an exhaustive list. Saying that one person (or two) are accounted for fails to address the concern that most are not.
--Wendy
Luc Faubert wrote:
Wendy,
If Danny becomes one of the 2 individual reps (and I think he could be a real good one), he will have a voice in all votes, including the ones for our ALAC reps. He will also be counted when we poll for consensus,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 19 avril 2007 18:33 To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to discourage their direct contribution.
I'd prefer to stay away from hypotheticals and stay in the realm of what's real. Offer a single name of an individual who really wanted to get involved but couldn't find any avenue to do so, and I'll give you a name of someone who didn't really try. Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs, is rejected when he tries to apply as an individual, yet might plausibly want a say in the selection of ALAC members.
Students (law, computer science), not members of organizations that are proper ALS candidates, but interested in the subject, would be great individual participants, especially if they found areas where their research could contribute to ICANN discussions. Why should they face the hurdle of finding and joining yet another organization in order to participate in the ALAC and NomCom selections?
--Wendy
ICANN is a thick bureaucracy. In reality, few people will take it on their own initiative to get involved; the disincentives to participation are in the effort needed to pick up ICANN culture, not in the lack of avenues for expression. And those people who do want to get involved would be welcomed with open arms by groups like mine, where active participants can not only express their own POV but help to generate interest in many others.
Please, let's not get caught up in symbolic gestures, actions designed to "send a message" to some amorphous audience without actually getting anything done. And let's especially not get caught up in "speaking up for those who want to but can't", when
1) we have no idea whether we're really expressing their interests 2) we haven't established whether any such people actually exist
Of course, one can get into the "we can't find them because they have no voice" logic loop, but that resembles a conspiracy theory more than a real cause for action.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-li s
ts.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
...and how would responsibilities be divided? Which of the forum or the GA would: - vote for the Chair, - choose the 2 ALAC reps, - set up task forces, - adopt/change the OP and MOU, - achieve consensus on policy comments? _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 19 avril 2007 23:04 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
I'm suggesting that we should have two decision-making components: one voting/consensus forum in which individuals can participate directly, and another, the GA, in which they are represented by a few of their number and through ALS representatives.
--Wendy
Luc Faubert wrote:
Wendy,
I guess I still don't understand exactly what you're proposing. Are you proposing that all individuals be able to vote?
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 19 avril 2007 22:32 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
I was asked for _some_ examples, not an exhaustive list. Saying that one person (or two) are accounted for fails to address the concern that most are not.
--Wendy
Luc Faubert wrote:
Wendy,
If Danny becomes one of the 2 individual reps (and I think he could be a real good one), he will have a voice in all votes, including the ones for our ALAC reps. He will also be counted when we poll for consensus,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 19 avril 2007 18:33 To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote: > I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the > unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to > discourage their direct contribution. > I'd prefer to stay away from hypotheticals and stay in the realm of what's real. Offer a single name of an individual who really wanted to get involved but couldn't find any avenue to do so, and I'll give you a name of someone who didn't really try. Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs, is rejected when he tries to apply as an individual, yet might plausibly want a say in the selection of ALAC members.
Students (law, computer science), not members of organizations that are proper ALS candidates, but interested in the subject, would be great individual participants, especially if they found areas where their research could contribute to ICANN discussions. Why should they face the hurdle of finding and joining yet another organization in order to participate in the ALAC and NomCom selections?
--Wendy
ICANN is a thick bureaucracy. In reality, few people will take it on their own initiative to get involved; the disincentives to participation are in the effort needed to pick up ICANN culture, not in the lack of avenues for expression. And those people who do want to get involved would be welcomed with open arms by groups like mine, where active participants can not only express their own POV but help to generate interest in many others.
Please, let's not get caught up in symbolic gestures, actions designed to "send a message" to some amorphous audience without actually getting anything done. And let's especially not get caught up in "speaking up for those who want to but can't", when
1) we have no idea whether we're really expressing their interests 2) we haven't established whether any such people actually exist
Of course, one can get into the "we can't find them because they have no voice" logic loop, but that resembles a conspiracy theory more than a real cause for action.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-li
s
ts.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs,
Er... I think you know that Danny Younger is Vice President of ISOC's NY chapter - actually, in the last month there has been a huge thread on the ISOC Chapters list, where the NY chapter asked for opinions, given that their member Danny Younger argued against the invitation that Luc Faubert sent them about joining NARALO. See: http://wwwhatsup.com/isoc-ny/ICANN_ALC So let's hear from Danny: Danny Younger ha scritto:
My application for ALS status has already been denied by the ALAC.
Further, the organization with which I am currently affiliated (ISOC-NY) is a member of the NCUC whose Charter deems ineligible for membership those organizations that either provide services under contract with ICANN or provide services under an MOU with ICANN -- see http://www.ncdnhc.org/current_charter.htm
As such my chapter will likely not join the ALAC as doing so might mean forfeiting their more valuable membership within the NCUC.
Now I get the impression that you seek to deny me full participatory rights on an equal footing with my peers...
Let's hope that I have misunderstood your position.
So: Danny - as an individual, you applied to be recognized as an ALS and your application was rejected (given that, no matter how you interpret the ICANN Bylaws definition of an ALS, an individual doesn't fit into it). However, you are a leader of an organization that perfectly qualifies as an ALS... but you do not want it to apply as an ALS, and even actively oppose those members of that organization that suggest it to do so. Also, you say that your organization cannot join NARALO because the *other* civil society grouping at ICANN forbids its members from participating in the At Large. But then, it's NARALO that "denies you full participatory rights"?? Why don't you ask the NCUC to waive that limitation (if it actually exists) so that you can enjoy your rights through ISOC-NY? If I may, I would suggest not to lose more time in discussing this kind of arguments... I see no way that Danny can change his mind on the At Large, but also, personally, I see it hard to buy into his claims, so discussing won't lead anywhere. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Re: no matter how you interpret the ICANN Bylaws definition of an ALS, an individual doesn't fit into it. Vittorio, Since it was you that served as the primary author of the language responsible for the abomination known as the ALAC, I understand your view that the interpretation doesn't accord with your vision of the At-Large as necessarily devoid of individuals. In North America, however, we recognize a form of organization known as the sole proprietorship. The ALAC chose to discriminate against a valid North American organizational form. I recall when you used to be part of an effort on the part of over 1000 individuals to properly organize the at-large -- perhaps you remember icannatlarge.com? But you chose to disregard the consensus view of the broader community and implemented a plan (together with those that had just eliminated all elected at-large directors within ICANN) that had the effect of denying individuals their due rights within ICANN. You have become a traitor to the at-large movement. Your recent comments are consistent with your lack of regard for the community of individuals you pretend to represent. Enjoy your forty pieces of silver as you take your next junket to an ICANN event. --- Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs,
Er... I think you know that Danny Younger is Vice President of ISOC's NY chapter - actually, in the last month there has been a huge thread on the ISOC Chapters list, where the NY chapter asked for opinions, given that their member Danny Younger argued against the invitation that Luc Faubert sent them about joining NARALO. See:
http://wwwhatsup.com/isoc-ny/ICANN_ALC
So let's hear from Danny:
Danny Younger ha scritto:
My application for ALS status has already been denied by the ALAC.
Further, the organization with which I am currently affiliated (ISOC-NY) is a member of the NCUC whose Charter deems ineligible for membership those organizations that either provide services under contract with ICANN or provide services under an MOU with ICANN -- see http://www.ncdnhc.org/current_charter.htm
As such my chapter will likely not join the ALAC as doing so might mean forfeiting their more valuable membership within the NCUC.
Now I get the impression that you seek to deny me full participatory rights on an equal footing with my peers...
Let's hope that I have misunderstood your position.
So: Danny - as an individual, you applied to be recognized as an ALS and your application was rejected (given that, no matter how you interpret the ICANN Bylaws definition of an ALS, an individual doesn't fit into it).
However, you are a leader of an organization that perfectly qualifies as an ALS... but you do not want it to apply as an ALS, and even actively oppose those members of that organization that suggest it to do so.
Also, you say that your organization cannot join NARALO because the *other* civil society grouping at ICANN forbids its members from participating in the At Large.
But then, it's NARALO that "denies you full participatory rights"??
Why don't you ask the NCUC to waive that limitation (if it actually exists) so that you can enjoy your rights through ISOC-NY?
If I may, I would suggest not to lose more time in discussing this kind of arguments... I see no way that Danny can change his mind on the At Large, but also, personally, I see it hard to buy into his claims, so discussing won't lead anywhere.
Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Danny I have to intervene here, this sort of rudeness and name-calling is totally unacceptable in an environment such as this where a group of volunteers are trying to work together to do something worthwhile. Please curb your passion and make an effort to be civil and civilized in discussion. Sincerely Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:35 AM To: Vittorio Bertola; Wendy Seltzer Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP Re: no matter how you interpret the ICANN Bylaws definition of an ALS, an individual doesn't fit into it. Vittorio, Since it was you that served as the primary author of the language responsible for the abomination known as the ALAC, I understand your view that the interpretation doesn't accord with your vision of the At-Large as necessarily devoid of individuals. In North America, however, we recognize a form of organization known as the sole proprietorship. The ALAC chose to discriminate against a valid North American organizational form. I recall when you used to be part of an effort on the part of over 1000 individuals to properly organize the at-large -- perhaps you remember icannatlarge.com? But you chose to disregard the consensus view of the broader community and implemented a plan (together with those that had just eliminated all elected at-large directors within ICANN) that had the effect of denying individuals their due rights within ICANN. You have become a traitor to the at-large movement. Your recent comments are consistent with your lack of regard for the community of individuals you pretend to represent. Enjoy your forty pieces of silver as you take your next junket to an ICANN event. --- Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs,
Er... I think you know that Danny Younger is Vice President of ISOC's NY chapter - actually, in the last month there has been a huge thread on the ISOC Chapters list, where the NY chapter asked for opinions, given that their member Danny Younger argued against the invitation that Luc Faubert sent them about joining NARALO. See:
http://wwwhatsup.com/isoc-ny/ICANN_ALC
So let's hear from Danny:
Danny Younger ha scritto:
My application for ALS status has already been denied by the ALAC.
Further, the organization with which I am currently affiliated (ISOC-NY) is a member of the NCUC whose Charter deems ineligible for membership those organizations that either provide services under contract with ICANN or provide services under an MOU with ICANN -- see http://www.ncdnhc.org/current_charter.htm
As such my chapter will likely not join the ALAC as doing so might mean forfeiting their more valuable membership within the NCUC.
Now I get the impression that you seek to deny me full participatory rights on an equal footing with my peers...
Let's hope that I have misunderstood your position.
So: Danny - as an individual, you applied to be recognized as an ALS and your application was rejected (given that, no matter how you interpret the ICANN Bylaws definition of an ALS, an individual doesn't fit into it).
However, you are a leader of an organization that perfectly qualifies as an ALS... but you do not want it to apply as an ALS, and even actively oppose those members of that organization that suggest it to do so.
Also, you say that your organization cannot join NARALO because the *other* civil society grouping at ICANN forbids its members from participating in the At Large.
But then, it's NARALO that "denies you full participatory rights"??
Why don't you ask the NCUC to waive that limitation (if it actually exists) so that you can enjoy your rights through ISOC-NY?
If I may, I would suggest not to lose more time in discussing this kind of arguments... I see no way that Danny can change his mind on the At Large, but also, personally, I see it hard to buy into his claims, so discussing won't lead anywhere.
Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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
__________________________________________________ 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: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:56 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:56 PM
I concur Jacqueline. Absolutely. I think we must establish a strict code of conduct so that people know what to expect. We should put in place a simplified version of RFC 3683 (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3683.txt) to manage this sort of thing. I can work on this when I have time. In the meantime, I propose we add an article to this effect in our OP. I'll think of something, _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: 20 avril 2007 10:30 To: 'Danny Younger'; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'Wendy Seltzer' Cc: 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
Danny I have to intervene here, this sort of rudeness and name-calling is totally unacceptable in an environment such as this where a group of volunteers are trying to work together to do something worthwhile. Please curb your passion and make an effort to be civil and civilized in discussion. Sincerely Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:35 AM To: Vittorio Bertola; Wendy Seltzer Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
Re: no matter how you interpret the ICANN Bylaws definition of an ALS, an individual doesn't fit into it.
Vittorio, Since it was you that served as the primary author of the language responsible for the abomination known as the ALAC, I understand your view that the interpretation doesn't accord with your vision of the At-Large as necessarily devoid of individuals.
In North America, however, we recognize a form of organization known as the sole proprietorship. The ALAC chose to discriminate against a valid North American organizational form.
I recall when you used to be part of an effort on the part of over 1000 individuals to properly organize the at-large -- perhaps you remember icannatlarge.com? But you chose to disregard the consensus view of the broader community and implemented a plan (together with those that had just eliminated all elected at-large directors within ICANN) that had the effect of denying individuals their due rights within ICANN.
You have become a traitor to the at-large movement. Your recent comments are consistent with your lack of regard for the community of individuals you pretend to represent. Enjoy your forty pieces of silver as you take your next junket to an ICANN event.
--- Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs,
Er... I think you know that Danny Younger is Vice President of ISOC's NY chapter - actually, in the last month there has been a huge thread on the ISOC Chapters list, where the NY chapter asked for opinions, given that their member Danny Younger argued against the invitation that Luc Faubert sent them about joining NARALO. See:
http://wwwhatsup.com/isoc-ny/ICANN_ALC
So let's hear from Danny:
Danny Younger ha scritto:
My application for ALS status has already been denied by the ALAC.
Further, the organization with which I am currently affiliated (ISOC-NY) is a member of the NCUC whose Charter deems ineligible for membership those organizations that either provide services under contract with ICANN or provide services under an MOU with ICANN -- see http://www.ncdnhc.org/current_charter.htm
As such my chapter will likely not join the ALAC as doing so might mean forfeiting their more valuable membership within the NCUC.
Now I get the impression that you seek to deny me full participatory rights on an equal footing with my peers...
Let's hope that I have misunderstood your position.
So: Danny - as an individual, you applied to be recognized as an ALS and your application was rejected (given that, no matter how you interpret the ICANN Bylaws definition of an ALS, an individual doesn't fit into it).
However, you are a leader of an organization that perfectly qualifies as an ALS... but you do not want it to apply as an ALS, and even actively oppose those members of that organization that suggest it to do so.
Also, you say that your organization cannot join NARALO because the *other* civil society grouping at ICANN forbids its members from participating in the At Large.
But then, it's NARALO that "denies you full participatory rights"??
Why don't you ask the NCUC to waive that limitation (if it actually exists) so that you can enjoy your rights through ISOC-NY?
If I may, I would suggest not to lose more time in discussing this kind of arguments... I see no way that Danny can change his mind on the At Large, but also, personally, I see it hard to buy into his claims, so discussing won't lead anywhere.
Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-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
__________________________________________________ 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_atl arge-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: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:56 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:56 PM
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Luc Faubert wrote:
I think we must establish a strict code of conduct so that people know what to expect. We should put in place a simplified version of RFC 3683 (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3683.txt) to manage this sort of thing. I can work on this when I have time. In the meantime, I propose we add an article to this effect in our OP. I'll think of something,
You timing is interesting. There is an active debate going on regarding the increase of rudeness and verbal abuse in various web-based public forums, sparked by Tim O'Reilly's proposed Bloggers Code of Conduct: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html The link also offers a number of ideas of what might be a reasonable (and not too heavy-handed) CoC for ourselves. Doing something like this is unfortunate but, I guess, inevitable. - Evan
Yes, even bloggers are realizing that self or community imposed restraints benefit everybody in the long run. The IETF worked for a long time without a formal framework for civility, but it finally had to adopt one as well. With the complexity of the issues we'll be working on here and the number of people who will be involved, I just don't see how we'll accomplish anything if we can't do this with a maximum (rather than a minimum) of civility, _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: 20 avril 2007 11:19 To: Luc Faubert; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
Luc Faubert wrote:
I think we must establish a strict code of conduct so that people know what to expect. We should put in place a simplified version of RFC 3683 (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3683.txt) to manage this sort of thing. I can work on this when I have time. In the meantime, I propose we add an article to this effect in our OP. I'll think of something,
You timing is interesting. There is an active debate going on regarding the increase of rudeness and verbal abuse in various web-based public forums, sparked by Tim O'Reilly's proposed Bloggers Code of Conduct:
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
The link also offers a number of ideas of what might be a reasonable (and not too heavy-handed) CoC for ourselves.
Doing something like this is unfortunate but, I guess, inevitable.
- Evan
To all certified ALSes and individual users: In preparation for formation of our General Assembly, ALSes and individual users need to enter the names of their 2 representatives at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts . This is pretty straightforward for ALSes and should be completed today. As for individual users, they will need to select their 2 representatives, so I propose we give ourselves the weekend for them to do so. Thanks in advance, _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
Thanks to all ALSes for posting their voting delegates on our contacts page. We're only missing the ones for IPT and People Who. I didn't hear from them yet. As for individual users, I encourage those interested to submit their candidacy as voting delegates to post this to the list, since it will be individuals subscribed to this list who will decide who their voting delegates will be, _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc Faubert Sent: 20 avril 2007 10:59 To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
To all certified ALSes and individual users:
In preparation for formation of our General Assembly, ALSes and individual users need to enter the names of their 2 representatives at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts .
This is pretty straightforward for ALSes and should be completed today. As for individual users, they will need to select their 2 representatives, so I propose we give ourselves the weekend for them to do so.
Thanks in advance,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Question: for the purposes of this list, are individual users only those who are not affiliated with an ALS? or are we all considered to be "individuals" as well as ALSs? Just wondering how this is being defined. Thank you, Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Luc Faubert Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 12:47 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps Thanks to all ALSes for posting their voting delegates on our contacts page. We're only missing the ones for IPT and People Who. I didn't hear from them yet. As for individual users, I encourage those interested to submit their candidacy as voting delegates to post this to the list, since it will be individuals subscribed to this list who will decide who their voting delegates will be, _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc Faubert Sent: 20 avril 2007 10:59 To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
To all certified ALSes and individual users:
In preparation for formation of our General Assembly, ALSes and individual users need to enter the names of their 2 representatives at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts .
This is pretty straightforward for ALSes and should be completed today. As for individual users, they will need to select their 2 representatives, so I propose we give ourselves the weekend for them to do so.
Thanks in advance,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
_______________________________________________ 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
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal. An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, - not a member of a certified ALS, - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat, - not part of ICANN staff. Feel free to amend, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/> ________________________________ From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: 21 avril 2007 16:09 To: Luc Faubert; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps Question: for the purposes of this list, are individual users only those who are not affiliated with an ALS? or are we all considered to be "individuals" as well as ALSs? Just wondering how this is being defined. Thank you, Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Luc Faubert Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 12:47 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps Thanks to all ALSes for posting their voting delegates on our contacts page. We're only missing the ones for IPT and People Who. I didn't hear from them yet. As for individual users, I encourage those interested to submit their candidacy as voting delegates to post this to the list, since it will be individuals subscribed to this list who will decide who their voting delegates will be, _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca > -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Luc Faubert > Sent: 20 avril 2007 10:59 > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps > > To all certified ALSes and individual users: > > In preparation for formation of our General Assembly, ALSes > and individual users need to enter the names of their 2 > representatives at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts . > > This is pretty straightforward for ALSes and should be > completed today. > As for individual users, they will need to select their 2 > representatives, so I propose we give ourselves the weekend > for them to do so. > > Thanks in advance, > > > _________________________________________ > 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.isoc.qc.ca > www.ccig.ca > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :) I'd remove those three. I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already. - Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.] --Wendy
Feel free to amend,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>
________________________________
From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: 21 avril 2007 16:09 To: Luc Faubert; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Question: for the purposes of this list, are individual users only those who are not affiliated with an ALS? or are we all considered to be "individuals" as well as ALSs? Just wondering how this is being defined.
Thank you,
Darlene
________________________________
From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Luc Faubert Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 12:47 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Thanks to all ALSes for posting their voting delegates on our contacts page. We're only missing the ones for IPT and People Who. I didn't hear from them yet.
As for individual users, I encourage those interested to submit their candidacy as voting delegates to post this to the list, since it will be individuals subscribed to this list who will decide who their voting delegates will be,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Luc Faubert Sent: 20 avril 2007 10:59 To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
To all certified ALSes and individual users:
In preparation for formation of our General Assembly, ALSes and individual users need to enter the names of their 2 representatives at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts .
This is pretty straightforward for ALSes and should be completed today. As for individual users, they will need to select their 2 representatives, so I propose we give ourselves the weekend for them to do so.
Thanks in advance,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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/
So, could I ask, why do we have ALSs then anyway? -Randy Glass A@L On 4/21/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :)
I'd remove those three. I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already.
- Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.]
--Wendy
Feel free to amend,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>
________________________________
From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: 21 avril 2007 16:09 To: Luc Faubert; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Question: for the purposes of this list, are individual users only those who are not affiliated with an ALS? or are we all considered to be "individuals" as well as ALSs? Just wondering how this is being defined.
Thank you,
Darlene
________________________________
From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Luc Faubert Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 12:47 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Thanks to all ALSes for posting their voting delegates on our contacts page. We're only missing the ones for IPT and People Who. I didn't hear from them yet.
As for individual users, I encourage those interested to submit their candidacy as voting delegates to post this to the list, since it will be individuals subscribed to this list who will decide who their voting delegates will be,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
> -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Luc Faubert > Sent: 20 avril 2007 10:59 > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps > > To all certified ALSes and individual users: > > In preparation for formation of our General Assembly, ALSes > and individual users need to enter the names of their 2 > representatives at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts . > > This is pretty straightforward for ALSes and should be > completed today. > As for individual users, they will need to select their 2 > representatives, so I propose we give ourselves the weekend > for them to do so. > > Thanks in advance, > > > _________________________________________ > 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.isoc.qc.ca > www.ccig.ca > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP >
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
On 21-Apr-07, at 8:24 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :)
Don't want to get rid of you... instead, would be keen to find a way to accommodate your concerns and make sure you continue to be as active as you have been..
I'd remove those three. I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already.
- Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
In terms of the NA ralo, not sure if other countries are represented. We might want to make a reference to the ICANN document which states which countries form part of the NA region. Only document I can find is the following - http://www.icann.org/ announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.]
sounds good regards Robert
On ICANN regions, lifted from a 2007.01.16 mail I sent to this list: 1. Countries in NARALO Using http://www.icann.org/montreal/geo-regions-topic.htm we can see that the countries in ICANN's North American region include: American Samoa Canada Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico United States Minor Outlying Islands United States Virgin Islands, U.S. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mr. Robert Guerra Sent: 21 avril 2007 20:46 To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
On 21-Apr-07, at 8:24 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :)
Don't want to get rid of you... instead, would be keen to find a way to accommodate your concerns and make sure you continue to be as active as you have been..
I'd remove those three. I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already.
- Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
In terms of the NA ralo, not sure if other countries are represented. We might want to make a reference to the ICANN document which states which countries form part of the NA region.
Only document I can find is the following - http://www.icann.org/ announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.]
sounds good
regards
Robert
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
1. Countries in NARALO Using http://www.icann.org/montreal/geo-regions-topic.htm we can see that the countries in ICANN's North American region include:
The ICANN list is rather misleading. It should really say something like this: Countries in NA Region:
Canada United States
Small pieces of the United States that are listed separately only because they have been assigned ISO 3166 codes
American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico Virgin Islands, U.S.
(These all have approximately the same relationship to the rest of the US that Nunavut, Yukon, or Bob have to the rest of Canada.) Uninhabited rocks in the Pacific Ocean:
United States Minor Outlying Islands
R's, John
John L wrote:
American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico Virgin Islands, U.S.
(These all have approximately the same relationship to the rest of the US that Nunavut, Yukon, or Bob have to the rest of Canada.)
Not quite, unless American Samoa, Guam, USVI etc. are now sending members of Congress and senators to Washington. (What's a Bob?) - Evan
American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico Virgin Islands, U.S.
(These all have approximately the same relationship to the rest of the US that Nunavut, Yukon, or Bob have to the rest of Canada.)
Not quite, unless American Samoa, Guam, USVI etc. are now sending members of Congress and senators to Washington.
They send delegates to the US House. For anyone who wants more details, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_(United_States_Congress) R's, John
Ah. Definitely different from Canadian territories then. We have the same federal voting process as the rest of Canada and receive transfer payments from the federal government just the same as any province (although the formula is different). You should view Canadian territories as being pretty much the same as the provinces. There are differences but they are interior and protracted. Still not sure about Bob, though! D ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of John L Sent: Sun 4/22/2007 10:32 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico Virgin Islands, U.S.
(These all have approximately the same relationship to the rest of the US that Nunavut, Yukon, or Bob have to the rest of Canada.)
Not quite, unless American Samoa, Guam, USVI etc. are now sending members of Congress and senators to Washington.
They send delegates to the US House. For anyone who wants more details, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_(United_States_Congress) R's, John _______________________________________________ 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
The difference is, are we talking about a geographical or political separation? US territories have representation, but it's non-voting. There was something I read ages ago that stated we were doing all this to separate into 'geographic regions' for ICANN. I never saw anything about 'political regions'. Also, what about Wake Island, Midway, Saipan, US Minor outlaying islands, etc.? Guam is an excellent example. Side note: When my group was applying for ALS, we had deep discussions on whether Hawaii should be in Asia-Pacific or North America. Of course, Hawaii is a state of the US, however geographically it is in Asia-Pacific. Much like (Western)Samoa and American Samoa - Two different nations represented politically, but geographically only a few miles away from each other in the south pacific, nowhere near North America. -Randy Glass A@L On 4/23/07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Ah. Definitely different from Canadian territories then. We have the same federal voting process as the rest of Canada and receive transfer payments from the federal government just the same as any province (although the formula is different). You should view Canadian territories as being pretty much the same as the provinces. There are differences but they are interior and protracted. Still not sure about Bob, though!
D
------------------------------ *From:* na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of John L *Sent:* Sun 4/22/2007 10:32 PM *To:* NA Discuss *Subject:* Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico Virgin Islands, U.S.
(These all have approximately the same relationship to the rest of the US that Nunavut, Yukon, or Bob have to the rest of Canada.)
Not quite, unless American Samoa, Guam, USVI etc. are now sending members of Congress and senators to Washington.
They send delegates to the US House. For anyone who wants more details, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_(United_States_Congress<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_%28United_States_Congress> )
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
The difference is, are we talking about a geographical or political separation?
ICANN groups political dependencies with the mother country. I gather that France insisted.
'political regions'. Also, what about Wake Island, Midway, Saipan, US Minor outlaying islands, etc.? Guam is an excellent example.
Guam and Saipan (CNMI) are listed explicitly as part of the NA region since they're part of the US. Wake, Midway, et al are uninhabited, but since they're US territory, they're also part of US. It's no sillier than Kerguelen being part of Europe.
When my group was applying for ALS, we had deep discussions on whether Hawaii should be in Asia-Pacific or North America.
We don't get to decide, ICANN has already divided up the world for us. R's, John
Hi The region grouping has been under discussion at ICANN - I will look for the reference and forward. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: John L [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 8:51 PM To: RJGlass | America@Large Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
The difference is, are we talking about a geographical or political separation?
ICANN groups political dependencies with the mother country. I gather that France insisted.
'political regions'. Also, what about Wake Island, Midway, Saipan, US Minor outlaying islands, etc.? Guam is an excellent example.
Guam and Saipan (CNMI) are listed explicitly as part of the NA region since they're part of the US. Wake, Midway, et al are uninhabited, but since they're US territory, they're also part of US. It's no sillier than Kerguelen being part of Europe.
When my group was applying for ALS, we had deep discussions on whether Hawaii should be in Asia-Pacific or North America.
We don't get to decide, ICANN has already divided up the world for us. R's, John _______________________________________________ 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: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007 8:18 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007 8:18 PM
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list,
X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :)
I'd remove those three. I would only think of removing the middle one, of being a member of an ALS pending application approval. Being a member of such an ALS is really in limbo, as you have no real representation until the application is approved. At least people should be able to be part of an at-large group _until_ the application is approved.
I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. I do see that as a problem -- in fact I don't think it's too strong to use the term "corruption" to explictly allow double dipping through a 'none of the above' pseudo-ALS mechanism. It's a fundamental sham on democracy to give multiple votes to certain people simply because they know how to manipulate the system in their favour. This is grossly unfair to -- and a ultimately disincentive to -- the very outsiders this process is trying to attract.
After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already.
Most ALSs charge membership dues or have other rites of membership that provide a disincentive to multiple joining. Most ALSs have various diverse missions, of which ICANN concerns are only a part. And ALSs that apply simply for the purpose of giving people multiple points of ICANN access are apparently being (correctly IMO) rejected, according to Danny. Regardless of how clever or valuable those already here feel they are, our primary goal (as I see it) is to interest and involve the public in this process, not give those already inside more ways in. If the attempt to reach new ALSs attracts those with significantly overlapping membership, I don't consider that progress. We want the greatest possible diversity of public involvement, not a recurring list of the "usual suspects", claiming to represent different interests. In my own mind this means that the RALO reps to ALAC are rotated as frequently as possible -- not because the existing ones are bad, but because we want the greatest possible breadth of involvement. In any case, the situation Wendy describes is rare enough -- unless the ALS recruitment process really fouls up -- to be something that can be tolerated, but should not be explicitly encouraged. And we certainly don't want the internal "ad hoc" ALS to be an explicit enabler of this practice.
Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
Do we want to go as far as explictly requiring legal status for non-citizens (ie, landed immigrant, green card, etc.) or us "resident" (or maybe "permanent resident") sufficient?
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.]
That works for me. - Evan
Here's another try at the definition, which by the way is for individual user delegates within NARALO -- not, as I stated in the earlier definition, for individual users per se. An NARALO individual user delegate must: - be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, - be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the North American region as defined by ICANN, - not be a member of a certified ALS, - not be the Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat, - not be employed by or have direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar. Another thing we have to determine is how long the mandate of individual users delegates lasts. I propose staggered one-year terms. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.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: 21 avril 2007 21:56 To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list,
X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :)
I'd remove those three. I would only think of removing the middle one, of being a member of an ALS pending application approval. Being a member of such an ALS is really in limbo, as you have no real representation until the application is approved. At least people should be able to be part of an at-large group _until_ the application is approved.
I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. I do see that as a problem -- in fact I don't think it's too strong to use the term "corruption" to explictly allow double dipping through a 'none of the above' pseudo-ALS mechanism. It's a fundamental sham on democracy to give multiple votes to certain people simply because they know how to manipulate the system in their favour. This is grossly unfair to -- and a ultimately disincentive to -- the very outsiders this process is trying to attract.
After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already.
Most ALSs charge membership dues or have other rites of membership that provide a disincentive to multiple joining. Most ALSs have various diverse missions, of which ICANN concerns are only a part. And ALSs that apply simply for the purpose of giving people multiple points of ICANN access are apparently being (correctly IMO) rejected, according to Danny.
Regardless of how clever or valuable those already here feel they are, our primary goal (as I see it) is to interest and involve the public in this process, not give those already inside more ways in. If the attempt to reach new ALSs attracts those with significantly overlapping membership, I don't consider that progress. We want the greatest possible diversity of public involvement, not a recurring list of the "usual suspects", claiming to represent different interests. In my own mind this means that the RALO reps to ALAC are rotated as frequently as possible -- not because the existing ones are bad, but because we want the greatest possible breadth of involvement.
In any case, the situation Wendy describes is rare enough -- unless the ALS recruitment process really fouls up -- to be something that can be tolerated, but should not be explicitly encouraged. And we certainly don't want the internal "ad hoc" ALS to be an explicit enabler of this practice.
Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
Do we want to go as far as explictly requiring legal status for non-citizens (ie, landed immigrant, green card, etc.) or us "resident" (or maybe "permanent resident") sufficient?
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.]
That works for me.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Works for me. Also, I am definitely agree with Evan's opinion of doing our absolute best to keep away from allowing people multiple votes. D ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Luc Faubert Sent: Sun 4/22/2007 10:10 AM To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps Here's another try at the definition, which by the way is for individual user delegates within NARALO -- not, as I stated in the earlier definition, for individual users per se. An NARALO individual user delegate must: - be subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, - be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the North American region as defined by ICANN, - not be a member of a certified ALS, - not be the Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat, - not be employed by or have direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar. Another thing we have to determine is how long the mandate of individual users delegates lasts. I propose staggered one-year terms. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.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: 21 avril 2007 21:56 To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list,
X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :)
I'd remove those three. I would only think of removing the middle one, of being a member of an ALS pending application approval. Being a member of such an ALS is really in limbo, as you have no real representation until the application is approved. At least people should be able to be part of an at-large group _until_ the application is approved.
I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. I do see that as a problem -- in fact I don't think it's too strong to use the term "corruption" to explictly allow double dipping through a 'none of the above' pseudo-ALS mechanism. It's a fundamental sham on democracy to give multiple votes to certain people simply because they know how to manipulate the system in their favour. This is grossly unfair to -- and a ultimately disincentive to -- the very outsiders this process is trying to attract.
After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already.
Most ALSs charge membership dues or have other rites of membership that provide a disincentive to multiple joining. Most ALSs have various diverse missions, of which ICANN concerns are only a part. And ALSs that apply simply for the purpose of giving people multiple points of ICANN access are apparently being (correctly IMO) rejected, according to Danny.
Regardless of how clever or valuable those already here feel they are, our primary goal (as I see it) is to interest and involve the public in this process, not give those already inside more ways in. If the attempt to reach new ALSs attracts those with significantly overlapping membership, I don't consider that progress. We want the greatest possible diversity of public involvement, not a recurring list of the "usual suspects", claiming to represent different interests. In my own mind this means that the RALO reps to ALAC are rotated as frequently as possible -- not because the existing ones are bad, but because we want the greatest possible breadth of involvement.
In any case, the situation Wendy describes is rare enough -- unless the ALS recruitment process really fouls up -- to be something that can be tolerated, but should not be explicitly encouraged. And we certainly don't want the internal "ad hoc" ALS to be an explicit enabler of this practice.
Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
Do we want to go as far as explictly requiring legal status for non-citizens (ie, landed immigrant, green card, etc.) or us "resident" (or maybe "permanent resident") sufficient?
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.]
That works for me.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
_______________________________________________ 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
Wendy, That list looked good to me but, I'm unaware - how would those criteria get rid of you? I think that we should try to avoid multiple counting any way that we can but we don't want to accidentally cut somebody out! D ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 8:24 PM To: Luc Faubert Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :) I'd remove those three. I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already. - Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.] --Wendy
Feel free to amend,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>
________________________________
From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: 21 avril 2007 16:09 To: Luc Faubert; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Question: for the purposes of this list, are individual users only those who are not affiliated with an ALS? or are we all considered to be "individuals" as well as ALSs? Just wondering how this is being defined.
Thank you,
Darlene
________________________________
From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Luc Faubert Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 12:47 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Thanks to all ALSes for posting their voting delegates on our contacts page. We're only missing the ones for IPT and People Who. I didn't hear from them yet.
As for individual users, I encourage those interested to submit their candidacy as voting delegates to post this to the list, since it will be individuals subscribed to this list who will decide who their voting delegates will be,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
> -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Luc Faubert > Sent: 20 avril 2007 10:59 > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps > > To all certified ALSes and individual users: > > In preparation for formation of our General Assembly, ALSes > and individual users need to enter the names of their 2 > representatives at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts . > > This is pretty straightforward for ALSes and should be > completed today. > As for individual users, they will need to select their 2 > representatives, so I propose we give ourselves the weekend > for them to do so. > > Thanks in advance, > > > _________________________________________ > 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.isoc.qc.ca > www.ccig.ca > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP >
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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/ _______________________________________________ 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
Since many of the ALSs were organizations established with their own purposes or constituencies, but have come together as organizations to declare themselves asn ALS (through the process), I think we have to also understand that these ALSs will approach matters before ICANN and the RALO from different perspectives, and that this is somewhat normal. The difference in perspective is likely to manifest itself in the focus or attention given to particular topics. Certain topics may not be considered pressing by a particular constituency. Now, as an individual, this means that all of my concerns as an individual will not likely be covered in any particular ALS unless the organization itself was constituted expressly and exclusively to server an ALS function. I recognize some of the ALSs are so constituted, and I am not arguing that all should. But I am pointing out that as an individual, I will want some mechanism by which to raise my voice on issues of concern to me, even if the ALS I am connected with does not take a stance. In fact, this leads directly to likely involvement in more than one ALS... if I am predisposed towards the focus of the different organization independent of their ALS status. This is not a nefarious situation of seeking multiplication of voting power. I am just pointing out that some of us will quite naturally have involvement in multiple organizations that may attain ALS status, and at the same time, we have rights of involvement as individuals despite any affiliation with any ALS. -MM On 4/22/07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Wendy,
That list looked good to me but, I'm unaware - how would those criteria get rid of you?
I think that we should try to avoid multiple counting any way that we can but we don't want to accidentally cut somebody out!
D
------------------------------ *From:* na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer *Sent:* Sat 4/21/2007 8:24 PM *To:* Luc Faubert *Cc:* NA Discuss *Subject:* Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :)
I'd remove those three. I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already.
- Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.]
--Wendy
Feel free to amend,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>
________________________________
From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA<DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>
]
Sent: 21 avril 2007 16:09 To: Luc Faubert; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Question: for the purposes of this list, are individual users only those who are not affiliated with an ALS? or are we all considered to be "individuals" as well as ALSs? Just wondering how this is being defined.
Thank you,
Darlene
________________________________
From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Luc Faubert Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 12:47 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Thanks to all ALSes for posting their voting delegates on our contacts page. We're only missing the ones for IPT and People Who. I didn't hear from them yet.
As for individual users, I encourage those interested to submit their candidacy as voting delegates to post this to the list, since it will be individuals subscribed to this list who will decide who their voting delegates will be,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
> -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>]
On Behalf
> Of Luc Faubert > Sent: 20 avril 2007 10:59 > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps > > To all certified ALSes and individual users: > > In preparation for formation of our General Assembly, ALSes > and individual users need to enter the names of their 2 > representatives at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts . > > This is pretty straightforward for ALSes and should be > completed today. > As for individual users, they will need to select their 2 > representatives, so I propose we give ourselves the weekend > for them to do so. > > Thanks in advance, > > > _________________________________________ > 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.isoc.qc.ca > www.ccig.ca > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP >
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Michael, On the one hand there is participation on NA-Discuss of all sorts of people. They can be individuals, members of an ALS or not. At this point, we don't have limitations regarding these individuals. Everybody is welcome. On the other hand, these individuals must elect 2 voting delegates to our General Assembly. The parameters defining who can act as one of these delegates are what we must agree on. These parameters have not effect on who can join NA-Discuss and discuss with the rest of us, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/> ________________________________ From: tropology@gmail.com [mailto:tropology@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Michael Maranda Sent: 22 avril 2007 12:17 To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Wendy Seltzer; Luc Faubert; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps Since many of the ALSs were organizations established with their own purposes or constituencies, but have come together as organizations to declare themselves asn ALS (through the process), I think we have to also understand that these ALSs will approach matters before ICANN and the RALO from different perspectives, and that this is somewhat normal. The difference in perspective is likely to manifest itself in the focus or attention given to particular topics. Certain topics may not be considered pressing by a particular constituency. Now, as an individual, this means that all of my concerns as an individual will not likely be covered in any particular ALS unless the organization itself was constituted expressly and exclusively to server an ALS function. I recognize some of the ALSs are so constituted, and I am not arguing that all should. But I am pointing out that as an individual, I will want some mechanism by which to raise my voice on issues of concern to me, even if the ALS I am connected with does not take a stance. In fact, this leads directly to likely involvement in more than one ALS... if I am predisposed towards the focus of the different organization independent of their ALS status. This is not a nefarious situation of seeking multiplication of voting power. I am just pointing out that some of us will quite naturally have involvement in multiple organizations that may attain ALS status, and at the same time, we have rights of involvement as individuals despite any affiliation with any ALS. -MM On 4/22/07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote: Wendy, That list looked good to me but, I'm unaware - how would those criteria get rid of you? I think that we should try to avoid multiple counting any way that we can but we don't want to accidentally cut somebody out! D ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 8:24 PM To: Luc Faubert Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps Luc Faubert wrote: > Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal. > > An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): > - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat, Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :) I'd remove those three. I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already. - Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada. > - not part of ICANN staff. To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.] --Wendy > > Feel free to amend, > > > _________________________________________ > Luc Faubert > Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / > IT governance and change management consulting > +1 514 236 5129 > www.LucFaubert.com < http://www.lucfaubert.com/ <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> > > www.LucFaubert.com/blog > www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> > www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> > www.maillons.qc.ca < http://www.maillons.qc.ca/ <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/> > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] > Sent: 21 avril 2007 16:09 > To: Luc Faubert; NA Discuss > Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user > voting reps > > > Question: for the purposes of this list, are individual users > only those who are not affiliated with an ALS? or are we all considered > to be "individuals" as well as ALSs? Just wondering how this is being > defined. > > Thank you, > > Darlene > > ________________________________ > > From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of > Luc Faubert > Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 12:47 PM > To: NA Discuss > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user > voting reps > > > > Thanks to all ALSes for posting their voting delegates on our > contacts > page. We're only missing the ones for IPT and People Who. I > didn't hear > from them yet. > > As for individual users, I encourage those interested to submit > their > candidacy as voting delegates to post this to the list, since it > will be > individuals subscribed to this list who will decide who their > voting > delegates will be, > > > _________________________________________ > 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.isoc.qc.ca > www.ccig.ca > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf > > Of Luc Faubert > > Sent: 20 avril 2007 10:59 > > To: NA Discuss > > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user > voting reps > > > > To all certified ALSes and individual users: > > > > In preparation for formation of our General Assembly, ALSes > > and individual users need to enter the names of their 2 > > representatives at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts . > > > > This is pretty straightforward for ALSes and should be > > completed today. > > As for individual users, they will need to select their 2 > > representatives, so I propose we give ourselves the weekend > > for them to do so. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > > > _________________________________________ > > 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.isoc.qc.ca > > www.ccig.ca > > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl > arge-lists.icann.org > > --- > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > Draft Operating Principles: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- 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/ _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Yes, I do follow. I was trying to address concerns of "multiplication of voting power" On 4/22/07, Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Hi Michael,
On the one hand there is participation on NA-Discuss of all sorts of people. They can be individuals, members of an ALS or not. At this point, we don't have limitations regarding these individuals. Everybody is welcome.
On the other hand, these individuals must elect 2 voting delegates to our General Assembly. The parameters defining who can act as one of these delegates are what we must agree on. These parameters have not effect on who can join NA-Discuss and discuss with the rest of us,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog <http://www.lucfaubert.com/blog> www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
------------------------------ *From:* tropology@gmail.com [mailto:tropology@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael Maranda *Sent:* 22 avril 2007 12:17 *To:* Thompson, Darlene *Cc:* Wendy Seltzer; Luc Faubert; NA Discuss *Subject:* Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Since many of the ALSs were organizations established with their own purposes or constituencies, but have come together as organizations to declare themselves asn ALS (through the process), I think we have to also understand that these ALSs will approach matters before ICANN and the RALO from different perspectives, and that this is somewhat normal. The difference in perspective is likely to manifest itself in the focus or attention given to particular topics. Certain topics may not be considered pressing by a particular constituency.
Now, as an individual, this means that all of my concerns as an individual will not likely be covered in any particular ALS unless the organization itself was constituted expressly and exclusively to server an ALS function. I recognize some of the ALSs are so constituted, and I am not arguing that all should. But I am pointing out that as an individual, I will want some mechanism by which to raise my voice on issues of concern to me, even if the ALS I am connected with does not take a stance.
In fact, this leads directly to likely involvement in more than one ALS... if I am predisposed towards the focus of the different organization independent of their ALS status. This is not a nefarious situation of seeking multiplication of voting power.
I am just pointing out that some of us will quite naturally have involvement in multiple organizations that may attain ALS status, and at the same time, we have rights of involvement as individuals despite any affiliation with any ALS.
-MM
On 4/22/07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Wendy,
That list looked good to me but, I'm unaware - how would those criteria get rid of you?
I think that we should try to avoid multiple counting any way that we can but we don't want to accidentally cut somebody out!
D
------------------------------ *From:* na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer *Sent:* Sat 4/21/2007 8:24 PM *To:* Luc Faubert *Cc:* NA Discuss *Subject:* Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Luc Faubert wrote:
Good question, Darlene. Here's a proposal.
An individual user is (for NARALO's purposes): - a person subscribed to the NA-Discuss list, X > - not a member of a certified ALS, X > - not a member of an org that has submitted an ALS application, X > - not on ALAC, nor Chair of NARALO, nor part of its Secretariat,
Why not? Just so you can get rid of me? :)
I'd remove those three. I wouldn't see it as a problem if we double counted individuals who were "represented" through ALSs but also active on their own behalf. After all, it's entirely possible that some are members of more than one ALS, so there's multiple counting already.
- Since we're regional, a natural person citizen or resident of the United States or Canada.
- not part of ICANN staff.
To consider: [- not employed by or having direct financial interest in an ICANN contractual partner registry or registrar.]
--Wendy
Feel free to amend,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com < http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca < http://www.maillons.qc.ca/>
________________________________
From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA<DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>
]
Sent: 21 avril 2007 16:09 To: Luc Faubert; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Question: for the purposes of this list, are individual users only those who are not affiliated with an ALS? or are we all
considered
to be "individuals" as well as ALSs? Just wondering how this is being defined.
Thank you,
Darlene
________________________________
From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Luc Faubert Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 12:47 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps
Thanks to all ALSes for posting their voting delegates on our contacts page. We're only missing the ones for IPT and People Who. I didn't hear from them yet.
As for individual users, I encourage those interested to submit their candidacy as voting delegates to post this to the list, since it will be individuals subscribed to this list who will decide who their voting delegates will be,
_________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
> -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf > Of Luc Faubert > Sent: 20 avril 2007 10:59 > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] ACTION: Registration of ALS & user voting reps > > To all certified ALSes and individual users: > > In preparation for formation of our General Assembly, ALSes > and individual users need to enter the names of their 2 > representatives at http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts . > > This is pretty straightforward for ALSes and should be > completed today. > As for individual users, they will need to select their 2 > representatives, so I propose we give ourselves the weekend > for them to do so. > > Thanks in advance, > > > _________________________________________ > 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.isoc.qc.ca > www.ccig.ca > www.maillons.qc.ca > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP >
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists
.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Passion is precisely what we need, and I saw no incivility. --Wendy Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Danny I have to intervene here, this sort of rudeness and name-calling is totally unacceptable in an environment such as this where a group of volunteers are trying to work together to do something worthwhile. Please curb your passion and make an effort to be civil and civilized in discussion. Sincerely Jacqueline
Wendy, I did. Danny Younger wrote:
You have become a traitor to the at-large movement. Your recent comments are consistent with your lack of regard for the community of individuals you pretend to represent. Enjoy your forty pieces of silver as you take your next junket to an > ICANN event.
I associate this to Merriam-Webster's definition of "incivility": Main Entry: in·ci·vil·i·ty Pronunciation: "in(t)-s&-'vi-l&-tE Function: noun Etymology: Middle French incivilité, from Late Latin incivilitat-, incivilitas, from incivilis, from Latin in- + civilis civil 1 : the quality or state of being uncivil 2 : a rude or discourteous act _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 20 avril 2007 11:36 To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
Passion is precisely what we need, and I saw no incivility.
--Wendy
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Danny I have to intervene here, this sort of rudeness and name-calling is totally unacceptable in an environment such as this where a group of volunteers are trying to work together to do something worthwhile. Please curb your passion and make an effort to be civil and civilized in discussion. Sincerely Jacqueline
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Passion is precisely what we need, and I saw no incivility.
Calling someone a traitor to their movement is civil discourse? I guess we have different boundaries. The CoCs I referred to sensibly seeks to keep discussions on issues, not personalities. And I would disagree with Wendy outright on the need for passion in this forum. Indeed, perhaps the ineffectiveness of ICANN's advisory processes to date -- and the associated baggage all-too-clearly evident here -- can be traced to previous triumphs of passion over logic. - Evan
Wendy This may be another cultural difference between you and me, but I saw it, Luc saw it and I am sure many others who haven't responded saw it as rude and uncivil. Passion is great, but plain old rudeness and name-calling is not. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:36 AM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: 'Danny Younger'; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP Passion is precisely what we need, and I saw no incivility. --Wendy Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Danny I have to intervene here, this sort of rudeness and name-calling is totally unacceptable in an environment such as this where a group of volunteers are trying to work together to do something worthwhile. Please curb your passion and make an effort to be civil and civilized in discussion. Sincerely Jacqueline
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:56 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:56 PM
I completely disagree. We need passion but not that kind of abusive behaviour. That simply makes people not want to contribute to the discussion. I, frankly, will not be a part of any kind of list that would allow that. I like Evan's & Luc's idea of a professional code of conduct that is enforceable - actually, much more than the moderation approach that I just suggested. We absolutely need to do something about this situation. Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Fri 4/20/2007 11:36 AM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP Passion is precisely what we need, and I saw no incivility. --Wendy Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Danny I have to intervene here, this sort of rudeness and name-calling is totally unacceptable in an environment such as this where a group of volunteers are trying to work together to do something worthwhile. Please curb your passion and make an effort to be civil and civilized in discussion. Sincerely Jacqueline
_______________________________________________ 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
If people on this list find it impossible to act like professionals (or even adults), perhaps it needs to be moderated. I don't actually like this solution as I would think that a group like this shouldn't need it but a few in this group seem to require it. Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: Fri 4/20/2007 10:29 AM To: 'Danny Younger'; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'Wendy Seltzer' Cc: 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP Danny I have to intervene here, this sort of rudeness and name-calling is totally unacceptable in an environment such as this where a group of volunteers are trying to work together to do something worthwhile. Please curb your passion and make an effort to be civil and civilized in discussion. Sincerely Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:35 AM To: Vittorio Bertola; Wendy Seltzer Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP Re: no matter how you interpret the ICANN Bylaws definition of an ALS, an individual doesn't fit into it. Vittorio, Since it was you that served as the primary author of the language responsible for the abomination known as the ALAC, I understand your view that the interpretation doesn't accord with your vision of the At-Large as necessarily devoid of individuals. In North America, however, we recognize a form of organization known as the sole proprietorship. The ALAC chose to discriminate against a valid North American organizational form. I recall when you used to be part of an effort on the part of over 1000 individuals to properly organize the at-large -- perhaps you remember icannatlarge.com? But you chose to disregard the consensus view of the broader community and implemented a plan (together with those that had just eliminated all elected at-large directors within ICANN) that had the effect of denying individuals their due rights within ICANN. You have become a traitor to the at-large movement. Your recent comments are consistent with your lack of regard for the community of individuals you pretend to represent. Enjoy your forty pieces of silver as you take your next junket to an ICANN event. --- Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
Danny Younger, as an individual, doesn't have groups that he can bully into applying as ALSs,
Er... I think you know that Danny Younger is Vice President of ISOC's NY chapter - actually, in the last month there has been a huge thread on the ISOC Chapters list, where the NY chapter asked for opinions, given that their member Danny Younger argued against the invitation that Luc Faubert sent them about joining NARALO. See:
http://wwwhatsup.com/isoc-ny/ICANN_ALC
So let's hear from Danny:
Danny Younger ha scritto:
My application for ALS status has already been denied by the ALAC.
Further, the organization with which I am currently affiliated (ISOC-NY) is a member of the NCUC whose Charter deems ineligible for membership those organizations that either provide services under contract with ICANN or provide services under an MOU with ICANN -- see http://www.ncdnhc.org/current_charter.htm
As such my chapter will likely not join the ALAC as doing so might mean forfeiting their more valuable membership within the NCUC.
Now I get the impression that you seek to deny me full participatory rights on an equal footing with my peers...
Let's hope that I have misunderstood your position.
So: Danny - as an individual, you applied to be recognized as an ALS and your application was rejected (given that, no matter how you interpret the ICANN Bylaws definition of an ALS, an individual doesn't fit into it).
However, you are a leader of an organization that perfectly qualifies as an ALS... but you do not want it to apply as an ALS, and even actively oppose those members of that organization that suggest it to do so.
Also, you say that your organization cannot join NARALO because the *other* civil society grouping at ICANN forbids its members from participating in the At Large.
But then, it's NARALO that "denies you full participatory rights"??
Why don't you ask the NCUC to waive that limitation (if it actually exists) so that you can enjoy your rights through ISOC-NY?
If I may, I would suggest not to lose more time in discussing this kind of arguments... I see no way that Danny can change his mind on the At Large, but also, personally, I see it hard to buy into his claims, so discussing won't lead anywhere.
Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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
__________________________________________________ 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: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:56 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:56 PM _______________________________________________ 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
Speaking of non-participation, I wonder whether we ought to consider a rule that would automatically drop an ALS from active/voting status for non-participation in __ successive elections? Thompson, Darlene wrote:
I'm thinking that 75% might be a little high. Not sure, though. I'm just worried about lack of participation tieing our hands from doing ANYTHING.
I'm OK with 2/3 of the member ALSes voting for adoption/modification of the OP. I've added the paragraph you proposed, Bret. I'm also OK with Robert's change to parag. 3. Good idea to drop out those who don't participate. The threshold could be non-participation at 3 elections. Also added text for this in parag. 16. As for final approval of the OP, I propose we aim to have it at next week's ccall at the latest. We've been at this for months and months. Let's move on! JACOB: I was under the impression you were going to plan next week's ccall. _________________________________________ 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.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: 13 avril 2007 16:14 To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Luc Faubert; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Speaking of non-participation, I wonder whether we ought to consider a rule that would automatically drop an ALS from active/voting status for non-participation in __ successive elections?
Thompson, Darlene wrote:
I'm thinking that 75% might be a little high. Not sure, though. I'm just worried about lack of participation tieing our hands from doing ANYTHING.
I would definitely approve something like that. I've just been on too many boards that have been rendered ineffective by people/groups going AWAL so that quorum can never be reached. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 4:14 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Luc Faubert; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Speaking of non-participation, I wonder whether we ought to consider a rule that would automatically drop an ALS from active/voting status for non-participation in __ successive elections? Thompson, Darlene wrote:
I'm thinking that 75% might be a little high. Not sure, though. I'm just worried about lack of participation tieing our hands from doing ANYTHING.
Thompson, Darlene wrote:
I would definitely approve something like that. I've just been on too many boards that have been rendered ineffective by people/groups going AWAL so that quorum can never be reached.
I agree, but in my brief time here I've seen that silence is frequently interpreted very wrong, and that the processes to date have been so muddy and confusing that it's sometimes hard to keep track of where an actual vote or opinion is required. The traffic on this mailing list is certainly more chaotic than I'm used to, for a decision-making body. Have a look at the last few week's worth of emails and try to figure out how often a consensus has been called for (notably meeting dates, places or methods). Here we are, some time after the original mail calling us to Yonkers, and it appears we need a meeting to figure out how and where to do the meeting. :-P As I said earlier, I don't want to have situations in which silence can be mistaken for a point of view. The combination of a reasonably high participant percentage AND the three-no-shows removal provisions ensure that the RALO makes the effort to _solicit_ opinions from the ALSs that have made an effort to be here. Sometimes, as I've found out myself, lack of input more often indicates confusion than indifference. I ask the staff and old-timers here to keep in mind that some of us -- especially the newer and smaller ones -- don't have the cycles to hang on every word, every operational detail, and that our portal to ICANN is what we have here. Give us the background information sufficient to work with (or at least form a basis for further research if needed), have some discussion, get our POV, and move on to the next. Also: Like Darlene, I am concerned about any proposal which involves judgement calls on the "quality" of a group's participation. If an ALS does nothing more than agree or disagree with proposals on the table, it's still fulfilling its role. Not everyone has the time for the shenanigans that appear to pass here for debate. - Evan
I agree completely. Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 10:35 AM To: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Thompson, Darlene wrote:
I would definitely approve something like that. I've just been on too many boards that have been rendered ineffective by people/groups going AWAL so that quorum can never be reached.
I agree, but in my brief time here I've seen that silence is frequently interpreted very wrong, and that the processes to date have been so muddy and confusing that it's sometimes hard to keep track of where an actual vote or opinion is required. The traffic on this mailing list is certainly more chaotic than I'm used to, for a decision-making body. Have a look at the last few week's worth of emails and try to figure out how often a consensus has been called for (notably meeting dates, places or methods). Here we are, some time after the original mail calling us to Yonkers, and it appears we need a meeting to figure out how and where to do the meeting. :-P As I said earlier, I don't want to have situations in which silence can be mistaken for a point of view. The combination of a reasonably high participant percentage AND the three-no-shows removal provisions ensure that the RALO makes the effort to _solicit_ opinions from the ALSs that have made an effort to be here. Sometimes, as I've found out myself, lack of input more often indicates confusion than indifference. I ask the staff and old-timers here to keep in mind that some of us -- especially the newer and smaller ones -- don't have the cycles to hang on every word, every operational detail, and that our portal to ICANN is what we have here. Give us the background information sufficient to work with (or at least form a basis for further research if needed), have some discussion, get our POV, and move on to the next. Also: Like Darlene, I am concerned about any proposal which involves judgement calls on the "quality" of a group's participation. If an ALS does nothing more than agree or disagree with proposals on the table, it's still fulfilling its role. Not everyone has the time for the shenanigans that appear to pass here for debate. - Evan
Read it - looks good to me! Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:55 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items After reading the recent dialogue about the draft MOU with ICANN, I thought it was worth noting that the final MOU will be the subject of negotation between the NARALO and ICANN. What we're putting together now is simply our "wish list." After we submit our wish list to ICANN, we'll have a sense of what ICANN feels will work and what won't. At that point, and if necessary, we can decide whether to (a) compromise and create the RALO or (b) hold firm on certain principles, either prolonging the negotiation or declining to form a RALO because the terms aren't acceptable. We ought to agree on the internal operating procedures first. http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP If these procedures are agreed by the ALSs, we would then use "rough consensus" processes to determine what the proposed MOU should look like. Bret _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
I've tweaked para 3. in the NA_RALO_OP in the wiki in a way that gives a stronger emphasis to users . Look forward to comments. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
We ought to agree on the internal operating procedures first.
Evan wrote: "It is beyond the scope of the ALS/RALO framework to accommodate individuals" Wrong. The entire point of the At-Large is to accommodate individuals. If you won't accommodate individuals, then your organization doesn't belong here. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
participants (15)
-
bfausett＠internet.law.pro -
Bret Fausett
-
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
jam＠jacquelinemorris.com
-
John L -
Luc Faubert -
Michael Gurstein -
Michael Maranda -
Mr. Robert Guerra -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wendy Seltzer