I still prefer the bicameral solution. Is no one else interested in discussing that? --Wendy Luc Faubert wrote:

To all unaffiliated users: this is your last chance to choose your voting delegates to our General Assembly before the vote on our Operating Principles. If you don't choose any delegates, the vote will happen without you being counted. It's not a problem of course if you get to this later, but I find it curious that with all the fuss about individual users needing to have a voice in NARALO, we don't see more interest in the task of selecting your voting delegates.

-- 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/

Bret Fausett wrote:

Can you hum a few bars? The concept is intriguing.

One "house" of ALS reps and just 2 individuals; 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, but both are things that ICANN needs to hear. Each could choose one ALAC rep, or they could join to reach consensus on both. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute 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/

Individuals who joined an ALS would have two routes of influence, through their ALSs and individually. Those who did not would have one. I understand that those who have put themselves forward as ALSs might now want to talk only to other organizations, but I don't see how that advances the interests of the public at-large. I don't want to devalue the ALSs, but I do want to empower the individuals within and outside them. --Wendy Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Wendy Seltzer wrote:

...

One "house" of ALS reps and just 2 individuals; 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, but both are things that ICANN needs to hear. Each could choose one ALAC rep, or they could join to reach consensus on both.

Disagreed.

Since the ALSs themselves are collectives, the "individual house" (which would be little more than a pseudo-ALS) should have no more status than any other single ALS.

Our own organisations already reflect a broad diversity of interests. I object to a process that would have the "none of the above" (NOTA) individuals to have more status than the membership of our group or any other ALS. As I've said before, it is discriminatory to the existing members of ALSs to have the individuals (of Wendy's proposed "individual house") given more influence on the process (ie, in the selection of ALAC reps).

Either of Wendy's proposed scenarios suggest such gross imbalance:

- "Each could choose one rep": that would mean that the NOTAs would have an equal representation to all of the conventional ALSs (and their combined collectives) put together

- ¨they could join to reach consensus on both": that would presume to give each member of the "individual house" a seat at the consensus table -- and by inference, the ability to scuttle a consensus -- equal to that of the REPRESENTATIVES of the ALSs.

The best way to maintain fairness in the process IMO is for ALAC to maintain a "pseudo ALS" for each region, that would accept as members any individuals seeking input that are not already members of an ALS. The pseudo-ALS would have similar status to any other ALS, and would be allowed to internally determine its own process to select to reps to the RALO.

Anything beyond that, which unfairly elevates the rights of non-ALS individual members, is to penalize the collective members of the ALS groups. This is not only anti-democratic but a disincentive to attracting the participation of other ALSs. Why incentive exists for an ALS to join, when its individual members can obtain greater influence by bypassing the process?

- 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

Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1856 287203 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute 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/

Luc Faubert wrote:

Nonetheless, as I told you already, I still find the concept intriguing (as does Bret, it seems) and am interested in discussing it. If people eventually agree on a change, we can always modify our OP with a vote at a later date, post San Juan.

I would prefer this as well. While I disagree with some of the proposals made so far, I think that a workable balance can be struck that offers a place for individuals but still encourages participation through ALSs. Still, it's unlikely that such a balance can be struck in two days and I'm reluctant to let this issue be an obstacle to moving _anything_ forward. - Evan

For a bicameral RALO, what threshhold would you put on it for the "individual" side to become effective? I don't think it would work if we had only, say, 5, 10, or even 50 authenticated individuals. 100? 500? More? -- Bret

Personally, I think that this just adds way too much complexity for what appears to be only one individual at this time. I am definitely opposed to having every little thing used as an excuse to slow things down. I say lets discuss this when we get more individuals. Right now it would just be constructing something that may never get used. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:50 AM To: Bret Fausett Cc: 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Bicameral NARALO

For a bicameral RALO, what threshhold would you put on it for the "individual" side to become effective? I don't think it would work if we had only, say, 5, 10, or even 50 authenticated individuals. 100? 500? More?

I'd say at least as large as the smallest ALS. I do like the idea of a bicameral RALO, and I'd like to take time to consider it, even if it means risking that we miss having a PR event in San Juan. R's, John _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

Jean Armour Polly wrote:

I think it is an interesting idea, too. And ICANN IS hoping the NARALO will show the way in coming up with something creative to better include individuals who want to be included.

Really? What specifically offers the impression that ICANN is looking to its slowest-acting RALO -- which doesn't even have a MOU in place -- for leadership? What I've read, from mail on this list as well as privately sent, indicates the exact opposite -- that we're just a notch above being seen as an embarassment. The best "leadership" we can offer is getting the fundamentals down (ie, at least get to the same levels of maturity of other RALOs) before we start to get creative. Despite all the noise, I haven't seen much to instill any confidence that we can even work _within_ the box, let alone push the boundaries. Let's demonstrate that we're capable of walking before boasting that we can win the sprint. - Evan

At 2:37 PM -0400 4/26/07, Evan Leibovitch recently said:

Jean Armour Polly wrote:

...

I think it is an interesting idea, too. And ICANN IS hoping the NARALO will show the way in coming up with something creative to better include individuals who want to be included.

Really? What specifically offers the impression that ICANN is looking to its slowest-acting RALO -- which doesn't even have a MOU in place -- for leadership? What I've read, from mail on this list as well as privately sent, indicates the exact opposite -- that we're just a notch above being seen as an embarassment.

The upcoming outside review will show whether or not ALAC has embarrassed itself. In the US we have had very little uptake on the ALS idea; in fact many people that still have their ICANN member at large PIN numbers from the days of the direct votes think the whole RALO idea serves to keep individuals at the fringes where they will not be able to cause any trouble. Be clear I am not saying this is what I think, I am just reporting on it (although I do still have my PIN number from 7 years ago!) It also has not helped that the US specifically does not have an ICANN evangelist. Jacob Malthouse is specific to only the Caribbean and Canada, NOT the US. So the fact remains that individual engagement offers the last best hope for participation in the US at least. Yes, there is only me so far. I think that actually proves the point. Vint, for one, has said many times that he hopes the NARALO will come up with something novel. I don't have time to go find citations in transcripts and mail for you, though, sorry! Others that remember this might corroborate. This is an opportunity to do something different, that might be better. It's not a race. No one is trying to delay anything. There's a seat empty on the NA ALAC roster right now. I don't know the status of it but I'd bet if we agitated to have it filled by our interim chair (or insert name here) the other ALAC members would agree.

Jean Armour Polly wrote:

The upcoming outside review will show whether or not ALAC has embarrassed itself.

I can't speak for ALAC, my comments regarded the NARALO.

In the US we have had very little uptake on the ALS idea; in fact many people that still have their ICANN member at large PIN numbers from the days of the direct votes think the whole RALO idea serves to keep individuals at the fringes where they will not be able to cause any trouble. That's one take. Another is that bringing collectives into the fold vastly increases the numbers of people involved/interested, and because the representation from these ALSs are from people selected by (and responsible to) the collectives, they tend to be less ego-driven.

Be clear I am not saying this is what I think, I am just reporting on it (although I do still have my PIN number from 7 years ago!)

What are you reporting on, then? Private emails? A secret society? A ghetto of the disaffected? How many of you are there? Are there enough to form an ALS? ;-)

It also has not helped that the US specifically does not have an ICANN evangelist. Jacob Malthouse is specific to only the Caribbean and Canada, NOT the US.

Considering that ICANN is widely been seen as an American body serving American interests, (remember WSIS efforts to get UN control?) you won't find any sympathy for the POV that the US isn't sufficiently involved. It seems no coincidence that none of the Canadians on this list are whining about the failures of the past. We weren't a part of that. This is an attempt to start something new, and my main concern right now is that people who have already had their shot are insistent on bringing their failed baggage to this process. While I have no illusions that the new system will produce certain results, I believe that importing the cynical and confrontational attitudes of the past significantly increases the chance of similar failure in the future. The ALS process hasn't even been given a chance to work, yet we have plenty in our midst who would doom it before it starts. This is something I suspect the cynics probably want, heaven forbid we might succeed where they failed! It's unfortunate that rather than help the newcomers understand -- to better navigate -- the nuances of ICANN culture, the old-timers spend their energies either telling us we're wasting our time, or trying to reinvent the process to more resemble their previously unsuccessful strategies.

So the fact remains that individual engagement offers the last best hope for participation in the US at least. Yes, there is only me so far. I think that actually proves the point.

No it doesn't prove a thing.

Vint, for one, has said many times that he hopes the NARALO will come up with something novel. I don't have time to go find citations in transcripts and mail for you, though, sorry! Others that remember this might corroborate.

Who's Vint? Nobody by that name has posted since I've been on the list. Maybe you and he can form an ALS for all those disaffected folks, or get involved in an existing NPO that would apply as an ALS. Now THAT would be novel!

This is an opportunity to do something different, that might be better. It's not a race. No one is trying to delay anything. There's a seat empty on the NA ALAC roster right now. I don't know the status of it but I'd bet if we agitated to have it filled by our interim chair (or insert name here) the other ALAC members would agree.

Maybe that's part of the problem you had. Perhaps "agitating" is an American tactic that hasn't worked so far, and a different way of thinking -- and acting -- is called for. - Evan

Seems like it would be hard to vote on something without knowing the substance behind it. On 4/25/07, Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:

Wendy,

We are 2 days away from the vote to ratify our Operating Principles. I don't think it is realistic to hope that we will agree on a revision of the basic format of NARALO in time for people to re-read, discuss and approve the OP for Friday.

Nonetheless, as I told you already, I still find the concept intriguing (as does Bret, it seems) and am interested in discussing it. If people eventually agree on a change, we can always modify our OP with a vote at a later date, post San Juan.

For the moment, unaffiliated users have still not selected their 2 voting delegates and the vote is Friday. Jean has submitted her candidacy as an unaffiliated user rep. Nobody else has come forward and I haven't seen any discussion among unaffiliated individuals on the subject, in spite of repeated calls to action. If individual users do not discuss among themselves, it's not even clear to me how representatives can be put in place in their name. For the moment at least, I guess it is fair to say that we are not muzzling any individuals and that we are not unduly ruling anybody out by postponing an eventual change in our format.

Back to your suggestion...

NA-Discuss is open to all, so anybody (member of an ALS or not) can join in the discussions on policy. Everybody is welcome, provided they abide by our Code of Conduct. You know this already, so I suppose you are suggesting this new format to give more formal influence to individuals over other NARALO affairs.

I asked you the following on 04.19 but received no answer:

...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?

This was in response to:

...

-----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 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: 25 avril 2007 15:14 To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP

Individuals who joined an ALS would have two routes of influence, through their ALSs and individually. Those who did not would have one. I understand that those who have put themselves forward as ALSs might now want to talk only to other organizations, but I don't see how that advances the interests of the public at-large.

I don't want to devalue the ALSs, but I do want to empower the individuals within and outside them. --Wendy

Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Wendy Seltzer wrote:

...

One "house" of ALS reps and just 2 individuals; 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, but both are things that ICANN needs to hear. Each could choose one ALAC rep, or they could join to reach consensus on both.

Disagreed.

Since the ALSs themselves are collectives, the "individual house" (which would be little more than a pseudo-ALS) should have no more status than any other single ALS.

Our own organisations already reflect a broad diversity of interests. I object to a process that would have the "none of the above" (NOTA) individuals to have more status than the membership of our group or any other ALS. As I've said before, it is discriminatory to the existing members of ALSs to have the individuals (of Wendy's proposed "individual house") given more influence on the process (ie, in the selection of ALAC reps).

Either of Wendy's proposed scenarios suggest such gross imbalance:

- "Each could choose one rep": that would mean that the NOTAs would have an equal representation to all of the conventional ALSs (and their combined collectives) put together

- ¨they could join to reach consensus on both": that would presume to give each member of the "individual house" a seat at the consensus table -- and by inference, the ability to scuttle a consensus -- equal to that of the REPRESENTATIVES of the ALSs.

The best way to maintain fairness in the process IMO is for ALAC to maintain a "pseudo ALS" for each region, that would accept as members any individuals seeking input that are not already members of an ALS. The pseudo-ALS would have similar status to any other ALS, and would be allowed to internally determine its own process to select to reps to the RALO.

Anything beyond that, which unfairly elevates the rights of non-ALS individual members, is to penalize the collective members of the ALS groups. This is not only anti-democratic but a disincentive to attracting the participation of other ALSs. Why incentive exists for an ALS to join, when its individual members can obtain greater influence by bypassing the process?

- 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

Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1856 287203 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute 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

Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org

Hi Randy, If you feel the Code of Conduct needs rewording, please feel free to either edit the page directly or discuss the improvements you think are needed on this list. This is a team effort. I've proposed something that others are free to improve on. On individual reps to the GA, the idea is to give individuals who don't belong to one of the certified ALSs a say in the management of NARALO affairs. The way the OP are written now, the 2 representatives of unaffiliated users to the GA have the same voting rights as those of one of the ALSs, _________________________________________ 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: RJGlass | America@Large [mailto:jipshida@gmail.com] Sent: 26 avril 2007 14:43 To: Luc Faubert Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP Thanks, I read the code of conduct. It is unlike any code of conduct I've seen, a little too ambiguous. Could someone decide something and put it all up for review before calling for a vote? Subject: Individual reps for GA I don't really understand this concept. I thought this was the purpose for creating the ALS/ALAC/et al. Within this concept are we not reverting to an at-large membership base? Why would someone want to be part of an ALS if they could just have a direct correspondence anyway by claiming to be part of this as an individual? Mahalo, Randy Glass A@L On 4/23/07, Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote: You're right Randy, and I apologize for the many late changes, but better do them now than have to go through another vote to change the OP in a few weeks. From my perspective at least, the OP are now pretty much final. The last thing I see we need is the Code of Conduct, which I'll try to work on tomorrow. This will be a separate document. I've received news from IP&T. They are looking at what's involved in participating, will consult internally and give us an answer soon. Sylvia Caras from People Who has registered the org on our Contacts page. We're only missing one voting delegate from CLUE and one from People Who. To all ALSes: please make sure your voting delegates are registered to the NA-Als list (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_atlarge-lists.ic ann.org ). I've looked at the list of subscribers and not all of the voting delegates are subscribed. To all unaffiliated users: this is your last chance to choose your voting delegates to our General Assembly before the vote on our Operating Principles. If you don't choose any delegates, the vote will happen without you being counted. It's not a problem of course if you get to this later, but I find it curious that with all the fuss about individual users needing to have a voice in NARALO, we don't see more interest in the task of selecting your voting delegates. _________________________________________ 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: RJGlass | America@Large [mailto:jipshida@gmail.com] Sent: 23 avril 2007 18:15 To: Luc Faubert Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP Yes, could someone put all the stuff we need together in one shot that we need to look at and/or revise and/or vote on?? Thanks -Randy Glass A@L On 4/23/07, Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote: Hello all, I've made changes and additions to our OP: - added criteria for individual reps to the GA, - added compliance to our Code of Conduct (still to be determined), - added wording to say we vote for our Secretariat, - made explicit that ALAC terms are for 2 years. I hope this is all satisfactory. We still need to define our Code of Conduct. If anybody wants to help, we should ideally do this before ratifying our OP this week, as the OP parag. 17 now says that participation to NARALO implies agreement to the Code of Conduct, _________________________________________ 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/> _______________________________________________ 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 -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org