Re: [NA-Discuss] [NA-ALS] ACTION REQUIRED: Vote for our Operating Principles
Hi, I would subscribe to the ALS list but since I'm not an ALS, I didn't think I should until some future time when status of individual delegates became more clear. :-) I'm not sure if there are any unaffiliated users currently out on the NA-Discuss list to acclaim either Wendy or myself as a "confirmed" delegate to represent individual users. Is there any way we can tell if there is anyone else on the list who is unaffiliated at this time? If there's an unaffiliated user out there could you please caucus with Wendy and/or me? As I said on the conference call, we haven't really tried to engage individuals at all, so far.... If I get a vote, and it's not clear if I do, I would vote no on the Operating principles and yes on the Code of Conduct. The no on the operating principles is just to explore the bicameral idea a bit more. I just think it deserves a good look. In my opinion we could still vote again on the OP by the end of May and if all goes well still announce in San Juan. Jean Armour Polly Unaffiliated individual from Jamesville NY USA Ex-ALAC NA via Nomcom At 12:56 PM -0400 5/1/07, Luc Faubert recently said:
Wendy,
If you vote as an unaffiliated user voting delegate, I suppose you consider yourself and Jean to be the voting delegates for unaffiliated users. You may want Jean to know that she should vote as well. She isn't subscribed to NA-ALS, so I am copying Jean.
I notice the http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts page still has "Unaffiliated Users (nominees)" above your names. Does the "nominees" refer to the fact that both of you are still candidates or that you have been seated as delegates? Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen any unaffiliated user posts on NA-Discuss to confirm your seating.
There is a bit of vagueness concerning the situation. Hope we can clear things up.
Also, you say you vote against the Code of Conduct for the same reasons that you stated before:
Re: the Code of Conduct
Note that any email that forwarded another's mail could be alleged to infringe a copyright (though in many instances there'd be a fair use defense, I don't really think that copyright or trademark belongs in the code of conduct).
We have however modified the Code of Conduct to take your reservations into account following last Friday's conference call (see my mail posted on this list on 04.27).
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 1 mai 2007 12:10 To: Luc Faubert Cc: All Accredited At Large Structures (ALS) in the North AmericanRegion Subject: Re: [NA-ALS] ACTION REQUIRED: Vote for our Operating Principles
As a nominated individual rep, I vote NO to the OP and Code of Conduct, because the pre-formation period is the optimal time to add individual participation options. Otherwise, individuals will always be fighting the vested interests of those already in.
For reasons already expressed, I vote against the Code of Conduct.
--Wendy
John L wrote:
Today we vote to ratify our NARALO Operating Principles and Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
No, because I want to explore the bicameral structure that can enfranchise the individual users that ALAC is supposed to represent. See Jean's recent message noting that Vint and other board members encourage different RALO structures, and the US is a particularly weak place to recruit ALS.
No, basically for the reasons that Wendy outlined. I suggest that we delete the trademark and copyright line both because nobody here is qualified to say what constitutes infringement (fair use and fair dealing rules are different in every country) and it's hard to see how an infringement by itself would be disruptive.
Also, my experience says that you suspend someone for a week and if he doesn't get the hint, then you banish him for years. Rather than writing that into the text, I'd remove the six months and leave the language that says that the chair suspends the person for the shortest period consistent with the offender's prior behavior.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ NA-ALS mailing list NA-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_atlarge-lists.i
cann.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/
Thanks for your vote Jean.
From what I can tell looking at the NA-Discuss subscriber list, Danny is the only other unaffiliated user if we exclude ICANN staff, ALAC members, people from ALSes and from organizations that have applied for certification. I'm not sure though.
Regards, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Jean Armour Polly [mailto:mom@netmom.com] Sent: 1 mai 2007 23:46 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Wendy Seltzer; All Accredited At Large Structures (ALS) in the North AmericanRegion; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [NA-ALS] ACTION REQUIRED: Vote for our Operating Principles
Hi, I would subscribe to the ALS list but since I'm not an ALS, I didn't think I should until some future time when status of individual delegates became more clear. :-)
I'm not sure if there are any unaffiliated users currently out on the NA-Discuss list to acclaim either Wendy or myself as a "confirmed" delegate to represent individual users. Is there any way we can tell if there is anyone else on the list who is unaffiliated at this time? If there's an unaffiliated user out there could you please caucus with Wendy and/or me? As I said on the conference call, we haven't really tried to engage individuals at all, so far....
If I get a vote, and it's not clear if I do, I would vote no on the Operating principles and yes on the Code of Conduct. The no on the operating principles is just to explore the bicameral idea a bit more. I just think it deserves a good look. In my opinion we could still vote again on the OP by the end of May and if all goes well still announce in San Juan.
Jean Armour Polly Unaffiliated individual from Jamesville NY USA Ex-ALAC NA via Nomcom
At 12:56 PM -0400 5/1/07, Luc Faubert recently said:
Wendy,
If you vote as an unaffiliated user voting delegate, I suppose you consider yourself and Jean to be the voting delegates for unaffiliated users. You may want Jean to know that she should vote as well. She isn't subscribed to NA-ALS, so I am copying Jean.
I notice the http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Contacts page still has "Unaffiliated Users (nominees)" above your names. Does the "nominees" refer to the fact that both of you are still candidates or that you have been seated as delegates? Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen any unaffiliated user posts on NA-Discuss to confirm your seating.
There is a bit of vagueness concerning the situation. Hope we can clear things up.
Also, you say you vote against the Code of Conduct for the same reasons that you stated before:
Re: the Code of Conduct
Note that any email that forwarded another's mail could be alleged to infringe a copyright (though in many instances there'd be a fair use defense, I don't really think that copyright or trademark belongs in the code of conduct).
We have however modified the Code of Conduct to take your reservations into account following last Friday's conference call (see my mail posted on this list on 04.27).
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 1 mai 2007 12:10 To: Luc Faubert Cc: All Accredited At Large Structures (ALS) in the North AmericanRegion Subject: Re: [NA-ALS] ACTION REQUIRED: Vote for our Operating Principles
As a nominated individual rep, I vote NO to the OP and Code of Conduct, because the pre-formation period is the optimal time to add individual participation options. Otherwise, individuals will always be fighting the vested interests of those already in.
For reasons already expressed, I vote against the Code of Conduct.
--Wendy
John L wrote:
Today we vote to ratify our NARALO Operating Principles and Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
No, because I want to explore the bicameral structure that can > enfranchise the individual users that ALAC is supposed to represent. See Jean's recent message noting that Vint and other board members > > encourage different RALO structures, and the US is a > particularly weak > > place to recruit ALS.
No, basically for the reasons that Wendy outlined. I suggest that we > delete the trademark and copyright line both because nobody here is > qualified to say what constitutes infringement (fair use and fair > dealing rules are different in every country) and it's hard to see how > an infringement by itself would be disruptive.
Also, my experience says that you suspend someone for a week and if he > doesn't get the hint, then you banish him for years. Rather than > writing that into the text, I'd remove the six months and leave the > language that says that the chair suspends the person for the shortest > period consistent with the offender's prior behavior.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ NA-ALS mailing list NA-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_atlarge-lists.
i
cann.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/
Thanks to everyone who has voted. I just wanted to correct a misunderstanding I've seen on the lists about the process. The vote does not "close" tonight...or on any date certain for that matter. On our call last week, we agreed that we would simply evaluate the status of the vote on Tuesday evening. If more than 30% of the votes are against the OP or the COC, they would fail. If we have more than 70% of the vote in favor of either proposition, it would pass. If neither is true, then we need to ask people who haven't voted to please vote, and the process will take more time. Let's see where we are in the morning. I think we're getting close. Bret
Here's a sheet with the current results for the vote on the OP. SUMMARY Yes: 14 No: 5 Abstentions: 3 Didn't vote: 2 _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: 2 mai 2007 02:19 To: All Accredited At Large Structures ((ALS)) in the North AmericanRegion Cc: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-ALS] Voting Procedural Correction
Thanks to everyone who has voted. I just wanted to correct a misunderstanding I've seen on the lists about the process. The vote does not "close" tonight...or on any date certain for that matter. On our call last week, we agreed that we would simply evaluate the status of the vote on Tuesday evening. If more than 30% of the votes are against the OP or the COC, they would fail. If we have more than 70% of the vote in favor of either proposition, it would pass. If neither is true, then we need to ask people who haven't voted to please vote, and the process will take more time. Let's see where we are in the morning. I think we're getting close.
Bret
_______________________________________________ NA-ALS mailing list NA-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_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
participants (3)
-
Bret Fausett -
Jean Armour Polly -
Luc Faubert