Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I don't want to devalue the ALSs, Yet you proposed a system that does just that.
but I do want to empower the individuals within and outside them.
The creation of a catch-all pseudo-ALS, offers fair involvement; anything beyond that empowers some to the penalty of others. As I've said before, the goal here is should not be to give multiple points of entry to the existing insiders who know how to exploit the fine print, but to provide encouragement to those who aren't even yet part of the process. The emphasis should be to encourage participation through ALSs -- existing or potential -- with bypassing them through direct participation being seen as a last resort rather than a preferred method of access. We need a process that is not only fair but that _appears_ fair, and that means not elevating the influence of the would-be elite at the outset. In my own opinion, anyone who is more interested in policy than ego should have no problem participating through an ALS (or -- failing that -- joining a NPO that shares their views and spearheading a move for that NPO to become an ALS). I have little sympathy for those who are too self-important to give the ALS process a chance; their greed and impatience should not be rewarded. - Evan
Hi all, Two things: 1. On the discussion below, I tend to agree with Evan. If we had seen more discussion between individuals this last week, I might think differently but it doesn't seem to be an issue yet. If it does then we should re-open. 2. On the Code of Conduct - I read the draft that Luc sent around and would like to voice my support of it but I just have one niggling concern and I'm not sure if I'm just being paranoid or not. What happens if the Chair doesn't find someone's comments to be inappropriate but the group does? Should we have some way of appealing the Chair's decision in such a case? The reason why I bring this up was illustrated last week when most of us were shocked by one person's outburst but Wendy didn't think that his outburst was inappropriate. Now, I'm not picking on Wendy here - she has every right to her opinion on this subject. But what if she was our Chair? Then her opinion would not be reflective of the group's. Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wed 4/25/2007 4:00 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I don't want to devalue the ALSs, Yet you proposed a system that does just that.
but I do want to empower the individuals within and outside them.
The creation of a catch-all pseudo-ALS, offers fair involvement; anything beyond that empowers some to the penalty of others. As I've said before, the goal here is should not be to give multiple points of entry to the existing insiders who know how to exploit the fine print, but to provide encouragement to those who aren't even yet part of the process. The emphasis should be to encourage participation through ALSs -- existing or potential -- with bypassing them through direct participation being seen as a last resort rather than a preferred method of access. We need a process that is not only fair but that _appears_ fair, and that means not elevating the influence of the would-be elite at the outset. In my own opinion, anyone who is more interested in policy than ego should have no problem participating through an ALS (or -- failing that -- joining a NPO that shares their views and spearheading a move for that NPO to become an ALS). I have little sympathy for those who are too self-important to give the ALS process a chance; their greed and impatience should not be rewarded. - Evan
Hi Darlene, The way I see the Chair's duty in judging the appropriateness of participant posts (and this goes for most of his other responsibilities), is that although he's the one who makes the last call, he should make every effort to take into account the opinions of the group. If the voice of the group says someone's posts are inappropriate because they do not respect our code of conduct, the Chair must take this into account when making his decision. At some point however we have to rely on our Chair, otherwise we'd always be voting, _________________________________________ 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: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thompson, Darlene Sent: 25 avril 2007 16:25 To: Evan Leibovitch; Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP Hi all, Two things: 1. On the discussion below, I tend to agree with Evan. If we had seen more discussion between individuals this last week, I might think differently but it doesn't seem to be an issue yet. If it does then we should re-open. 2. On the Code of Conduct - I read the draft that Luc sent around and would like to voice my support of it but I just have one niggling concern and I'm not sure if I'm just being paranoid or not. What happens if the Chair doesn't find someone's comments to be inappropriate but the group does? Should we have some way of appealing the Chair's decision in such a case? The reason why I bring this up was illustrated last week when most of us were shocked by one person's outburst but Wendy didn't think that his outburst was inappropriate. Now, I'm not picking on Wendy here - she has every right to her opinion on this subject. But what if she was our Chair? Then her opinion would not be reflective of the group's. Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wed 4/25/2007 4:00 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP Wendy Seltzer wrote: > I don't want to devalue the ALSs, Yet you proposed a system that does just that. > but I do want to empower the individuals within and outside them. > The creation of a catch-all pseudo-ALS, offers fair involvement; anything beyond that empowers some to the penalty of others. As I've said before, the goal here is should not be to give multiple points of entry to the existing insiders who know how to exploit the fine print, but to provide encouragement to those who aren't even yet part of the process. The emphasis should be to encourage participation through ALSs -- existing or potential -- with bypassing them through direct participation being seen as a last resort rather than a preferred method of access. We need a process that is not only fair but that _appears_ fair, and that means not elevating the influence of the would-be elite at the outset. In my own opinion, anyone who is more interested in policy than ego should have no problem participating through an ALS (or -- failing that -- joining a NPO that shares their views and spearheading a move for that NPO to become an ALS). I have little sympathy for those who are too self-important to give the ALS process a chance; their greed and impatience should not be rewarded. - Evan
Yes, that was in the back of my mind, too. In that case, I'm fine with the wording in the code of conduct. 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 ________________________________ From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:47 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP Hi Darlene, The way I see the Chair's duty in judging the appropriateness of participant posts (and this goes for most of his other responsibilities), is that although he's the one who makes the last call, he should make every effort to take into account the opinions of the group. If the voice of the group says someone's posts are inappropriate because they do not respect our code of conduct, the Chair must take this into account when making his decision. At some point however we have to rely on our Chair, otherwise we'd always be voting, _________________________________________ 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: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thompson, Darlene Sent: 25 avril 2007 16:25 To: Evan Leibovitch; Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP Hi all, Two things: 1. On the discussion below, I tend to agree with Evan. If we had seen more discussion between individuals this last week, I might think differently but it doesn't seem to be an issue yet. If it does then we should re-open. 2. On the Code of Conduct - I read the draft that Luc sent around and would like to voice my support of it but I just have one niggling concern and I'm not sure if I'm just being paranoid or not. What happens if the Chair doesn't find someone's comments to be inappropriate but the group does? Should we have some way of appealing the Chair's decision in such a case? The reason why I bring this up was illustrated last week when most of us were shocked by one person's outburst but Wendy didn't think that his outburst was inappropriate. Now, I'm not picking on Wendy here - she has every right to her opinion on this subject. But what if she was our Chair? Then her opinion would not be reflective of the group's. Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wed 4/25/2007 4:00 PM To: Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP Wendy Seltzer wrote: > I don't want to devalue the ALSs, Yet you proposed a system that does just that. > but I do want to empower the individuals within and outside them. > The creation of a catch-all pseudo-ALS, offers fair involvement; anything beyond that empowers some to the penalty of others. As I've said before, the goal here is should not be to give multiple points of entry to the existing insiders who know how to exploit the fine print, but to provide encouragement to those who aren't even yet part of the process. The emphasis should be to encourage participation through ALSs -- existing or potential -- with bypassing them through direct participation being seen as a last resort rather than a preferred method of access. We need a process that is not only fair but that _appears_ fair, and that means not elevating the influence of the would-be elite at the outset. In my own opinion, anyone who is more interested in policy than ego should have no problem participating through an ALS (or -- failing that -- joining a NPO that shares their views and spearheading a move for that NPO to become an ALS). I have little sympathy for those who are too self-important to give the ALS process a chance; their greed and impatience should not be rewarded. - Evan
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I don't want to devalue the ALSs, Yet you proposed a system that does just that.
No, I proposed a system that actually gives them ways to make a difference with the public, not just with their own groups of insiders.
but I do want to empower the individuals within and outside them.
The creation of a catch-all pseudo-ALS, offers fair involvement; anything beyond that empowers some to the penalty of others.
As I've said before, the goal here is should not be to give multiple points of entry to the existing insiders who know how to exploit the fine print, but to provide encouragement to those who aren't even yet part of the process. The emphasis should be to encourage participation through ALSs -- existing or potential -- with bypassing them through direct participation being seen as a last resort rather than a preferred method of access. We need a process that is not only fair but that _appears_ fair, and that means not elevating the influence of the would-be elite at the outset.
It's hardly the elite. The elites have already gone and formed their own constituencies, with voting rights, and left us this muddle. I don't find the ALS process democratic, so I'm trying to allow more routes for those who don't get to speak through it. --Wendy
In my own opinion, anyone who is more interested in policy than ego should have no problem participating through an ALS (or -- failing that -- joining a NPO that shares their views and spearheading a move for that NPO to become an ALS). I have little sympathy for those who are too self-important to give the ALS process a chance; their greed and impatience should not be rewarded.
- Evan
-- 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/
participants (4)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Luc Faubert -
Thompson, Darlene -
Wendy Seltzer