Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise. The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses. On 17/04/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
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, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Well, in that case I can see absolutely no reason not to let such groups in. If they are interested in taking part and want to work with us, why not? I thought that we are here to encourage participation, not to impose imaginary barriers to it. 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: nashtonhart@gmail.com [mailto:nashtonhart@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:25 PM To: John L Cc: Thompson, Darlene; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise. The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses. On 17/04/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
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, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
I disagree. The ICANN General Counsel represents ICANN, not us. We are independently charged with interpreting and acting upon the bylaws, and may or may not reach the same conclusion as the GC. --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses.
On 17/04/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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/
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it? The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion." If an org-of-orgs fulfills the above, why in the world would we want to impose a barrier to it? Am I missing something here?? 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: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:58 PM To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: John L; Thompson, Darlene; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items I disagree. The ICANN General Counsel represents ICANN, not us. We are independently charged with interpreting and acting upon the bylaws, and may or may not reach the same conclusion as the GC. --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses.
On 17/04/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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 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/
Sorry, can't locate the reference... Where exactly in the ICANN bylaws did you find that? --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it? The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
If an org-of-orgs fulfills the above, why in the world would we want to impose a barrier to it? Am I missing something here??
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: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:58 PM To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: John L; Thompson, Darlene; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
I disagree. The ICANN General Counsel represents ICANN, not us. We are independently charged with interpreting and acting upon the bylaws, and may or may not reach the same conclusion as the GC.
--Wendy
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses.
On 17/04/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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 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_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
It was in the document that Nick just sent out to us, third page, second paragraph under the subheading "Second Criteria". 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: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:52 PM To: Thompson, Darlene; Wendy Seltzer; nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Sorry, can't locate the reference... Where exactly in the ICANN bylaws did you find that? --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it? The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
If an org-of-orgs fulfills the above, why in the world would we want to impose a barrier to it? Am I missing something here??
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: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:58 PM To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: John L; Thompson, Darlene; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
I disagree. The ICANN General Counsel represents ICANN, not us. We are independently charged with interpreting and acting upon the bylaws, and may or may not reach the same conclusion as the GC.
--Wendy
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses.
On 17/04/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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 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_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
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
What Nick sent out is a draft proposal that he prepared that is under discussion - it was discussed at Lisbon, and we are awaiting comments before the ALAC finally votes on it, hopefully in the May teleconference. So comments are welcome until end April. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:58 PM To: Danny Younger; Wendy Seltzer; nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items It was in the document that Nick just sent out to us, third page, second paragraph under the subheading "Second Criteria". 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: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:52 PM To: Thompson, Darlene; Wendy Seltzer; nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items Sorry, can't locate the reference... Where exactly in the ICANN bylaws did you find that? --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it? The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
If an org-of-orgs fulfills the above, why in the world would we want to impose a barrier to it? Am I missing something here??
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: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:58 PM To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: John L; Thompson, Darlene; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
I disagree. The ICANN General Counsel represents ICANN, not us. We are independently charged with interpreting and acting upon the bylaws, and may or may not reach the same conclusion as the GC.
--Wendy
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses.
On 17/04/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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 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_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
__________________________________________________ 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: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: 4/17/2007 5:20 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it?
Nobody's throwing up blocks to participation. If the organizations in question had applied to the NCUC where they belong, they would have been accepted months if not years ago.
The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
That's not the bylaws, that part of the letter is JJ's opinion of what he thinks the bylaws should mean. The actual bylaws language is quoted in the middle of page 2 of his letter. You can and should read the full bylaws at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm This is a good example of ICANN working at odds with the interest of at large users. The ALAC is supposed to represent individual end users, not people who think they represent the interests of end users.* The idea of all the constituencies is that each represents some group of interested people. There is a long history of special interests vs. public interest at ICANN, with the public interest all too often getting the short end of the stick. For example, today you can read about a bunch of price increases by major GTLD registries that have no justification other than that the first one was bundled into the settlement of a lawsuit against ICANN. To the extent that the ALAC fills up with groups that belong elsewhere, the already tenuous influence of individuals is further diluted. If you think that individuals deserve their place at the table, this is a problem you should be concerned about. If the staff had supported us and said a year ago, hey, the bylaws say you're applying to the wrong place, go to the NCUC, that would have been the end of it. Instead, we've been subjected to a year of appeals and ombudsman and now the general council torturing the language to futher dilute what little influence individual users have. 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. * - which opens the door to anyone from Sympatico and Road Runner ("we're deeply concerned about the interests of our millions of individual ISP customers") to trademark lawyers ("we're fighting to keep individual users from being confused about the valuable brand names they know and trust"). Let's not go there.
Whether there is perception or fact of ICANN or others working at odds, I think we all need ot figure out how we can best work together towards our common purpose. Sometimes if someone comes in with theri perspective, perhaps new to this group, or not aware of particular histories, they become the object of a criticicm which traces to other forces and actors. That does not mean their perspective is not valid. I am not arguing for equal validity of all perspectives either. But we do need agood mechanism for introducing people to a cooperative culture with some history. Also, we need room to revisit past perceptions and decisions. I believe Darlene has made a very important set of points in how we should engage here and the tone we should set. Ths is important for the work we want to do and for the future participation of others. As a newcomer to this discourse I didnt come in with blind faith in the goodness or effectiveness of all parties, nor am I unaware of some entities potentially being used to serve as window dressing. With such awareness we can take pains to make sure we do something of value. I didnt come here to feel important, I came here because these policy questions are important, and we should use as many mechanisms as we can to promote the public interest. Anyone who doesnt think this can be an effective locus of activity would do well to direct their attentions elsewhere, I am sure. But for the most part we should endeavor toward civility and welcoming others to the work. Michael -Michael On 4/18/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it?
Nobody's throwing up blocks to participation. If the organizations in question had applied to the NCUC where they belong, they would have been accepted months if not years ago.
The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
That's not the bylaws, that part of the letter is JJ's opinion of what he thinks the bylaws should mean. The actual bylaws language is quoted in the middle of page 2 of his letter. You can and should read the full bylaws at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm
This is a good example of ICANN working at odds with the interest of at large users. The ALAC is supposed to represent individual end users, not people who think they represent the interests of end users.* The idea of all the constituencies is that each represents some group of interested people. There is a long history of special interests vs. public interest at ICANN, with the public interest all too often getting the short end of the stick. For example, today you can read about a bunch of price increases by major GTLD registries that have no justification other than that the first one was bundled into the settlement of a lawsuit against ICANN.
To the extent that the ALAC fills up with groups that belong elsewhere, the already tenuous influence of individuals is further diluted. If you think that individuals deserve their place at the table, this is a problem you should be concerned about.
If the staff had supported us and said a year ago, hey, the bylaws say you're applying to the wrong place, go to the NCUC, that would have been the end of it. Instead, we've been subjected to a year of appeals and ombudsman and now the general council torturing the language to futher dilute what little influence individual users have.
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.
* - which opens the door to anyone from Sympatico and Road Runner ("we're deeply concerned about the interests of our millions of individual ISP customers") to trademark lawyers ("we're fighting to keep individual users from being confused about the valuable brand names they know and trust"). Let's not go there.
_______________________________________________ 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
John, Do you have, or could you point me to a clear and unambiguous definition of the term "individual user" (you use it at least three times in your note below). tks, Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: April 18, 2007 12:59 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it?
Nobody's throwing up blocks to participation. If the organizations in question had applied to the NCUC where they belong, they would have been accepted months if not years ago.
The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
That's not the bylaws, that part of the letter is JJ's opinion of what he thinks the bylaws should mean. The actual bylaws language is quoted in the middle of page 2 of his letter. You can and should read the full bylaws at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm This is a good example of ICANN working at odds with the interest of at large users. The ALAC is supposed to represent individual end users, not people who think they represent the interests of end users.* The idea of all the constituencies is that each represents some group of interested people. There is a long history of special interests vs. public interest at ICANN, with the public interest all too often getting the short end of the stick. For example, today you can read about a bunch of price increases by major GTLD registries that have no justification other than that the first one was bundled into the settlement of a lawsuit against ICANN. To the extent that the ALAC fills up with groups that belong elsewhere, the already tenuous influence of individuals is further diluted. If you think that individuals deserve their place at the table, this is a problem you should be concerned about. If the staff had supported us and said a year ago, hey, the bylaws say you're applying to the wrong place, go to the NCUC, that would have been the end of it. Instead, we've been subjected to a year of appeals and ombudsman and now the general council torturing the language to futher dilute what little influence individual users have. 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. * - which opens the door to anyone from Sympatico and Road Runner ("we're deeply concerned about the interests of our millions of individual ISP customers") to trademark lawyers ("we're fighting to keep individual users from being confused about the valuable brand names they know and trust"). Let's not go there. _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:2676,462678b3273381511682732!
From: http://alac.icann.org/ ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of ICANN Board members.
Thanks for shedding some light on the noise, Jacob. Looking at this text, I can see some possible ambiguity and overlap. An NPO with a membership base could conceivably find itself under either process. Then again, I note that the chair of NCUC is Milton Mueller, the person Danny quoted as saying the whole process was hopeless. I prefer not to be part of a body that has declared itself impotent. In this unwritten context, I see the ALAC/RALO process in an opportunity to start fresh, without the whiny civil society baggage. Given the nature of some comments on this list, it may be inevitable that some of this baggage will find its way into the NARALO, but we can do our best to keep the attitude positive and advise rather than confront. Still, on paper there does seem to be some overlap, Jacob. Perhaps some clarity is in order regarding different kinds of member organizations, and what body would be appropriate for each. Could you possibly elaborate a little on the specifics of the GNSO; it appears that the NCUC is focused on policy related specifically there, while the ALAC/RALO process has a wider scope. Is this accurate? - Evan
I too am grateful for the light on this matter. The objections to certain applications are clearly unwarranted. The At Large Commnunity would be ill-served by the exclusion of certain of the recent applications. -Michael On 4/19/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Thanks for shedding some light on the noise, Jacob.
Looking at this text, I can see some possible ambiguity and overlap. An NPO with a membership base could conceivably find itself under either process.
Then again, I note that the chair of NCUC is Milton Mueller, the person Danny quoted as saying the whole process was hopeless. I prefer not to be part of a body that has declared itself impotent.
In this unwritten context, I see the ALAC/RALO process in an opportunity to start fresh, without the whiny civil society baggage. Given the nature of some comments on this list, it may be inevitable that some of this baggage will find its way into the NARALO, but we can do our best to keep the attitude positive and advise rather than confront. Still, on paper there does seem to be some overlap, Jacob. Perhaps some clarity is in order regarding different kinds of member organizations, and what body would be appropriate for each.
Could you possibly elaborate a little on the specifics of the GNSO; it appears that the NCUC is focused on policy related specifically there, while the ALAC/RALO process has a wider scope. Is this accurate?
- 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Evan Leibovitch ha scritto:
Could you possibly elaborate a little on the specifics of the GNSO; it appears that the NCUC is focused on policy related specifically there, while the ALAC/RALO process has a wider scope. Is this accurate?
Sure. The NCUC, as a GNSO constituency, participates (with votes) to the policy making processes of the GNSO, whose purview covers gTLD registrations; GNSO policies are then submitted to the Board for consideration. The ALAC, as an advisory committee to the Board, provides (non-voting) advice to the Board related to all policy making processes of ICANN, including those in the GNSO, those in the ccNSO (ccTLD coordination), those in the ASO (IP addresses coordination), and also advice on the IANA function (technical registry, ccTLD redelegations) and on the operational, political and strategical activities of ICANN. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Hi Jacob, I don't mean to be a pest about this but has there been any "official" interpretation on what precisely is meant by the term "individual Internet user" as below... There was no response to my two cases from yesterday -- one, that of (more or less anonymous) cybercafe frequenting I-users and the other, folks clustered in various groupings "using" the Internet via telecentres (or community networks as per Michael Maranda's interventions). On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. (individuals as collectives hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of individuals etc.etc.). In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. MG -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob Malthouse Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC From: http://alac.icann.org/ ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of ICANN Board members. _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249!
Everyone who uses the Internet is an "individual Internet user." Why should we try to give the term more content than that? --Wendy Michael Gurstein wrote:
Hi Jacob,
I don't mean to be a pest about this but has there been any "official" interpretation on what precisely is meant by the term "individual Internet user" as below...
There was no response to my two cases from yesterday -- one, that of (more or less anonymous) cybercafe frequenting I-users and the other, folks clustered in various groupings "using" the Internet via telecentres (or community networks as per Michael Maranda's interventions).
On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. (individuals as collectives hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of individuals etc.etc.).
In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated.
MG
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob Malthouse Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC
From: http://alac.icann.org/ ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests.
From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of ICANN Board members.
_______________________________________________ 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
!DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249!
____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance@lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-- 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 think that the general understanding is that the individual internet user is exactly that - a person who uses the Internet (in a personal capacity). Which is the global population (or will be) Very large group. So, we deal with aggregates of users, and groups that serve the interests of these individuals. So both of your cases would fit. Issues that affect these users are the issues of interest to the AtLarge. I disagree that it is without content just because it means anyone... Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:49 AM To: 'Jacob Malthouse'; 'NA Discuss'; governance@lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC Hi Jacob, I don't mean to be a pest about this but has there been any "official" interpretation on what precisely is meant by the term "individual Internet user" as below... There was no response to my two cases from yesterday -- one, that of (more or less anonymous) cybercafe frequenting I-users and the other, folks clustered in various groupings "using" the Internet via telecentres (or community networks as per Michael Maranda's interventions). On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid then could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in fact is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone, since anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any judgements in this regard); or it should necessarily include some sorts of collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc. (individuals as collectives hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as collections of individuals etc.etc.). In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet governance be formulated. MG -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacob Malthouse Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC From: http://alac.icann.org/ ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests. From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops and supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of ICANN Board members. _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:2676,4627709c273381703595249! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance@lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM
Nobody's throwing up blocks to participation. If the organizations in question had applied to the NCUC where they belong, they would have been accepted months if not years ago.
Who is to say that the NCUC is where they "belong"? Perhaps that isn't the type of work they are interested in. If their member groups are representing interested individuals and they can PROVE that (I would insist on them having to prove that somehow), then they obviously belong here. Again, if ICANN would approve these ones, and these ones can prove that they are representing individuals through their member orgs, then it is WE who are throwing up barriers.
This is a good example of ICANN working at odds with the interest of at
large users. The ALAC is supposed to represent individual end users, not people who think they represent the interests of end users.* The idea of
So, who makes that judgment call of who actually represents individual end users and who "think they represent the interests of end users"? If orgs-of-orgs can prove that they represent individuals, why would be stop them from joining us? Is this power left up to just one or two people??? This is making me extremely uncomfortable.
If you think that individuals deserve their place at the table, this is a problem you should be concerned about.
You bet I'm VERY concerned about this. That is why I am pursuing this whole thread. I think that we should be encouraging participation by the appropriate groups and nothing that has been said here has changed my mind that this is actually happening.
If the staff had supported us and said a year ago, hey, the bylaws say you're applying to the wrong place, go to the NCUC, that would have been the end of it. Instead, we've been subjected to a year of appeals and ombudsman and now the general council torturing the language to futher dilute what little influence individual users have.
Well, thank God that somebody is actually looking into this issue! I do not want to dilute user influence but rather re-look at how we are encouraging users. I just don't want to cut off an organization that might be all about user interests just because it has a structure that we aren't used to. I would rather pursue this issue in a spirit of open-mindedness and inclusion so that we capture as many end-user opinions as possible. 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: John L [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:59 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Very true but aren't we supposed to be encouraging participation rather than throwing up our own blocks to it?
Nobody's throwing up blocks to participation. If the organizations in question had applied to the NCUC where they belong, they would have been accepted months if not years ago.
The by-laws clearly state, "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such
an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion."
That's not the bylaws, that part of the letter is JJ's opinion of what he thinks the bylaws should mean. The actual bylaws language is quoted in the middle of page 2 of his letter. You can and should read the full bylaws at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm This is a good example of ICANN working at odds with the interest of at large users. The ALAC is supposed to represent individual end users, not people who think they represent the interests of end users.* The idea of all the constituencies is that each represents some group of interested people. There is a long history of special interests vs. public interest at ICANN, with the public interest all too often getting the short end of the stick. For example, today you can read about a bunch of price increases by major GTLD registries that have no justification other than that the first one was bundled into the settlement of a lawsuit against ICANN. To the extent that the ALAC fills up with groups that belong elsewhere, the already tenuous influence of individuals is further diluted. If you think that individuals deserve their place at the table, this is a problem you should be concerned about. If the staff had supported us and said a year ago, hey, the bylaws say you're applying to the wrong place, go to the NCUC, that would have been the end of it. Instead, we've been subjected to a year of appeals and ombudsman and now the general council torturing the language to futher dilute what little influence individual users have. 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. * - which opens the door to anyone from Sympatico and Road Runner ("we're deeply concerned about the interests of our millions of individual ISP customers") to trademark lawyers ("we're fighting to keep individual users from being confused about the valuable brand names they know and trust"). Let's not go there.
Thompson, Darlene wrote:
So, who makes that judgment call of who actually represents individual end users and who "think they represent the interests of end users"? Indeed. If you went to the the existing members of the NCUC and asked "whose interests do you represent", most -- even unaccountable foundations -- will have no problem listing some broad public constituencies. Civil society can be funny that way.
I think that we should be encouraging participation by the appropriate groups and nothing that has been said here has changed my mind that this is actually happening.
Agreed. This whole org-of-orgs thing is IMO a useless distraction. We should always err on the side of greater inclusivity, and support whatever mechanisms bring it. And rather than complain about what the staff has not done in the past, let's concentrate on what it should be doing now. If we ask for something and it isn't delivered, that's a cause of concern. But I don't expect ICANN staff to be mind-readers, and nobody is served by setting things up to fail. - Evan
I don't know that I have any strong opinions on this subject, but as someone who has followed the ICANN process for a long time, let me throw out one concern for discussion. Entities with commercial interests in the outcomes of ICANN's decisions are well-funded, powerful and have proven that they can and will insinuate themselves into any and every ICANN process where they are allowed. If we allow organizations that are composed of something other than individuals, are you comfortable sharing the NARALO with political action committees, lobbying organizations, "think tanks," and other organizations that are funded and directed by commercial businesses with commercial interests in the outcome of ICANN's decisions? (think Verisign, AT&T, intellectual property interest groups, registrars, etc.). -- Bret
Well I think that we'd have to look really closely at the orgs to not allow these to enter. We already ask about funding - we can strengthen that to see if they are beholden to a commercial interest... It is still at the discretion of the AtLarge that certification is granted, so even if we allow orgs of orgs, we can turn down 'fake user orgs" (reminds me of the GONGOS at WSIS) on many criteria if we truly feel that they do not have the interests of the individual users at heart. Otherwise, there are many orgs of orgs that are true user-centric, that we might leave out that would make a valuable contribution. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:03 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] Orgs of Orgs v. Orgs of Individuals I don't know that I have any strong opinions on this subject, but as someone who has followed the ICANN process for a long time, let me throw out one concern for discussion. Entities with commercial interests in the outcomes of ICANN's decisions are well-funded, powerful and have proven that they can and will insinuate themselves into any and every ICANN process where they are allowed. If we allow organizations that are composed of something other than individuals, are you comfortable sharing the NARALO with political action committees, lobbying organizations, "think tanks," and other organizations that are funded and directed by commercial businesses with commercial interests in the outcome of ICANN's decisions? (think Verisign, AT&T, intellectual property interest groups, registrars, etc.). -- Bret _______________________________________________ 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: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007 5:32 AM
Excellent point. We absolutely would not want such groups stomping all over us. The way that I was envisioning an acceptable org-of-orgs (or however the entity might be set up) is that it would have to prove that its member orgs are composed of individuals, are not commercial and are still grassroots. I rather liked the wording in ICANN's ALS Application Interpretations guidelines which states: "For example, an 'Umbrella NGO' where such an NGO's organizational members are themselves controlled by and for the benefit of individual Internet users would fulfil the criterion. However, if an Umbrella NGO were to be composed largely of groups with little connection with individual Internet users' interests, or if an Umbrella NGO has no ability for individual internet users to participate in any way in it's work, that would be grounds for determining the applicant to be ineligible." I think that something like this would be a good rule of thumb. Of course, we are not part of ICANN so we should feel free to do our own guidelines on this. 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: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:03 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] Orgs of Orgs v. Orgs of Individuals I don't know that I have any strong opinions on this subject, but as someone who has followed the ICANN process for a long time, let me throw out one concern for discussion. Entities with commercial interests in the outcomes of ICANN's decisions are well-funded, powerful and have proven that they can and will insinuate themselves into any and every ICANN process where they are allowed. If we allow organizations that are composed of something other than individuals, are you comfortable sharing the NARALO with political action committees, lobbying organizations, "think tanks," and other organizations that are funded and directed by commercial businesses with commercial interests in the outcome of ICANN's decisions? (think Verisign, AT&T, intellectual property interest groups, registrars, etc.). -- 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 the cases of entities that are essentially community networks, we have a very different breed of entity. For the most part they are volunteer run, or have limited staff and a cadre of volunteers. I think the risk scenario Bret describes oversimplifies the matter by not taking account of those sort of entities and by the implcation that Commercial entites could not get around the existing rules/criteria. Frankly, if any of those types of groups listed cared to insinuate themselves, they would very easily do so. That they havent is largely a perecption that there isnt any power here. I am offering my comments not out of sheer cynicism, but on the evidence of certain commercial entites assuming the garb of non-profit entities and think tanks - as for example the well known strategy of "astroturfing". I follow Telecomm/Media policy closely and I have seen such entities as are listed fund such strategies. Establishing an astroturf ALS that meets all the official criteria is a very simle matter if they wanted to do so. Indeed they may even seem "attractive" partners because they would have some resources. Regards, Michael On 4/19/07, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
I don't know that I have any strong opinions on this subject, but as someone who has followed the ICANN process for a long time, let me throw out one concern for discussion. Entities with commercial interests in the outcomes of ICANN's decisions are well-funded, powerful and have proven that they can and will insinuate themselves into any and every ICANN process where they are allowed.
If we allow organizations that are composed of something other than individuals, are you comfortable sharing the NARALO with political action committees, lobbying organizations, "think tanks," and other organizations that are funded and directed by commercial businesses with commercial interests in the outcome of ICANN's decisions? (think Verisign, AT&T, intellectual property interest groups, registrars, etc.).
-- Bret
_______________________________________________ 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
Bret Fausett wrote:
If we allow organizations that are composed of something other than individuals, I'm not sure I followed where this went off-track.
I'd always thought that ALSs had to be based on NPOs with an explicit, identifiable, membership base. Umbrella orgs -- for instance, national orgs with multiple state or provincial sub-groups -- still can be traceable down to individual members and, as such, are fine with me. Why do things need to get more complex than this?
are you comfortable sharing the NARALO with political action committees, lobbying organizations, "think tanks," and other organizations that are funded and directed by commercial businesses with commercial interests in the outcome of ICANN's decisions? (think Verisign, AT&T, intellectual property interest groups, registrars, etc.).
There are also non-profit think tanks, lobbying orgs and PACs; they also have their own agendas, not universally in the public interest. I'm happy with leaving them all over at the NCUC. :-) Also consider that industry consortia are also "membership" organizations, though their members are corporations not individuals. I think that the existing guidelines, that require an org to have a democratic process and voting individual members represent a reasonable boundary. - Evan PS: I would note that an "intellectual property interest group" comprised of a membership of individual inventors/creators, is (and should continue to be) a legitimate candidate for an ALS. I may not agree with their interests, but they can't be denied entry because of their POV. In Canada there is a growing rift between creators and "rights holders" (ie, publishers and producers); both have an interest in intellectual property issues, but from increasingly divergent viewpoints.
Bret Fausett ha scritto:
I don't know that I have any strong opinions on this subject, but as someone who has followed the ICANN process for a long time, let me throw out one concern for discussion. Entities with commercial interests in the outcomes of ICANN's decisions are well-funded, powerful and have proven that they can and will insinuate themselves into any and every ICANN process where they are allowed.
If we allow organizations that are composed of something other than individuals, are you comfortable sharing the NARALO with political action committees, lobbying organizations, "think tanks," and other organizations that are funded and directed by commercial businesses with commercial interests in the outcome of ICANN's decisions? (think Verisign, AT&T, intellectual property interest groups, registrars, etc.).
Again, I don't have a totally final view on this, and also the problem of what is called "astroturf participation" is mostly specific to North America - not that we don't have it elsewhere, but it's done less frequently and less scientifically :-) So it's your call - or better, in the end, it's the ALAC's call on who gets accredited. In any case, if a group applies and it is discovered that it is clearly connected with commercial interests as the above, what prevents the ALAC from rejecting its application or decertifying it later? -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
If then interpretation is important, then the context and values of those organizations should play a prominent role iin such decisions, which is why I made the point of the role of community networking and community networks. They ought to be considered as very much along the lines desired as ALS/RALO participants. On 4/18/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
I disagree. The ICANN General Counsel represents ICANN, not us. We are independently charged with interpreting and acting upon the bylaws, and may or may not reach the same conclusion as the GC.
--Wendy
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
The ALAC does of course have a no-orgs-of-orgs policy, for the reasons which Vittorio previously stated, and is free to change that policy if it chooses.
On 17/04/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
If JJ has gone to all that effort to explain that the bylaws don't mean what they say, who am I to argue otherwise. R's, John
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?
What is the benefit of saying "If JJ has gone to all that effort to explain that the bylaws don't mean what they say"? Such comments seem to me to be unnecessarily rude and inflammatory. Is it possible to keep the conversations in this list to a slightly more professional level? The by-laws clearly state that orgs-of-orgs are allowed in plain English (see my last e-mail). However, if I am misreading them or if there is some other points that we should be considering, then lets discuss it. But PLEASE let's discuss these in an adult manner. 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: John L [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:22 PM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Thompson, Darlene; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Point of correction: The statement below is incorrect. The draft proposal submitted to ALAC to deal with this problem, attached hereto again, has been reviewed by the ICANN GC and there is no such barrier in the Bylaws or otherwise.
If JJ has gone to all that effort to explain that the bylaws don't mean what they say, who am I to argue otherwise. R's, John
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?
Thompson, Darlene ha scritto:
What is the benefit of saying "If JJ has gone to all that effort to explain that the bylaws don't mean what they say"? Such comments seem to me to be unnecessarily rude and inflammatory. Is it possible to keep the conversations in this list to a slightly more professional level?
The by-laws clearly state that orgs-of-orgs are allowed in plain English (see my last e-mail). However, if I am misreading them or if there is some other points that we should be considering, then lets discuss it. But PLEASE let's discuss these in an adult manner.
I was there when that section of the ICANN Bylaws was drafted. The original intent was to say that only organizations having individual members would be allowed, but then, thinking at the way many groups are organized (and especially ISOC chapters, which were the most common user group active in Internet governance at that time), it was realized that you would need to allow ALSes to have organizational members as well, even if for-profit entities (e.g. sponsors or supporting companies), as long as they weren't the ones who would actually determine the positions of the group. This is why the "predominate" language ended up in the Bylaws - to give some degree of flexibility for what regards actual structures. However, we specifically designed the system with the ALAC (not ICANN staff) certifying ALSes, because we wanted to avoid the risk of capture or spin by ICANN; the At Large was to be free to make ultimate case by case determinations on whether certain organizations were predominantly participated by individual users. Even if I'm quite sure that, when the Bylaws were drafted, the intended meaning was "no orgs of orgs", it is true that one could read them in a more flexible manner, and that, in the end, it is the attitude that was meant to count, not the form. Now we have an official opinion by the ICANN General Counsel to confirm this, but anyway I don't think that by opening up to organizations that regroup smaller groups of users we would be violating the Bylaws principle that "participation by individuals must predominate"; it all depends on whether, in the end, the grassroots participation and interests of individuals are reflected in the policies of the leadership. This is an evaluation that should be done case by case by the ALAC - and I don't think that the ALAC would need Bylaws text to reject, say, an ISP! But for example, we already accredited entities who are involved in ccTLD management as well, because in Africa there's often just one small group of people doing everything related to Internet governance for policy and practice; so that's really an evaluation that needs to be done for each case. It is a subjective evaluation that IMHO, if in doubt, should tend to be liberal rather than restrictive: if people feel that this is their home, and we don't see gross mismatch between their attitudes and those of a class of average Internet users, nor risk of capture (which is anyway getting smaller and smaller as the number of ALSes grows), then we should let them in. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
I agree with you Vittorio. I think orgs of orgs in At-Large especially make sense when, given the time required to adequately follow ICANN-related issues, it would be impractical for smaller orgs with less resources to follow what goes on here. But as John has argued, this new interpretation should be formally accepted and communicated, which is what staff is trying to accomplish. So I think we are underway to resolving this issue, _________________________________________ 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 Vittorio Bertola Sent: 19 avril 2007 10:21 To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Thompson, Darlene ha scritto:
What is the benefit of saying "If JJ has gone to all that effort to explain that the bylaws don't mean what they say"? Such comments seem to me to be unnecessarily rude and inflammatory. Is it possible to keep the conversations in this list to a slightly more professional level?
The by-laws clearly state that orgs-of-orgs are allowed in plain English (see my last e-mail). However, if I am misreading them or if there is some other points that we should be considering, then lets discuss it. But PLEASE let's discuss these in an adult manner.
I was there when that section of the ICANN Bylaws was drafted. The original intent was to say that only organizations having individual members would be allowed, but then, thinking at the way many groups are organized (and especially ISOC chapters, which were the most common user group active in Internet governance at that time), it was realized that you would need to allow ALSes to have organizational members as well, even if for-profit entities (e.g. sponsors or supporting companies), as long as they weren't the ones who would actually determine the positions of the group. This is why the "predominate" language ended up in the Bylaws - to give some degree of flexibility for what regards actual structures.
However, we specifically designed the system with the ALAC (not ICANN staff) certifying ALSes, because we wanted to avoid the risk of capture or spin by ICANN; the At Large was to be free to make ultimate case by case determinations on whether certain organizations were predominantly participated by individual users.
Even if I'm quite sure that, when the Bylaws were drafted, the intended meaning was "no orgs of orgs", it is true that one could read them in a more flexible manner, and that, in the end, it is the attitude that was meant to count, not the form. Now we have an official opinion by the ICANN General Counsel to confirm this, but anyway I don't think that by opening up to organizations that regroup smaller groups of users we would be violating the Bylaws principle that "participation by individuals must predominate"; it all depends on whether, in the end, the grassroots participation and interests of individuals are reflected in the policies of the leadership.
This is an evaluation that should be done case by case by the ALAC - and I don't think that the ALAC would need Bylaws text to reject, say, an ISP! But for example, we already accredited entities who are involved in ccTLD management as well, because in Africa there's often just one small group of people doing everything related to Internet governance for policy and practice; so that's really an evaluation that needs to be done for each case.
It is a subjective evaluation that IMHO, if in doubt, should tend to be liberal rather than restrictive: if people feel that this is their home, and we don't see gross mismatch between their attitudes and those of a class of average Internet users, nor risk of capture (which is anyway getting smaller and smaller as the number of ALSes grows), then we should let them in. -- 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.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 that: -Individuals should predominately represented -organizational membership within an ALS should be OK -this conversation is inflammatory -individual at-large membership should be either a) put into a subgroup or b) referred to an ALS -Randy Glass A@L On 4/19/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Thompson, Darlene ha scritto:
What is the benefit of saying "If JJ has gone to all that effort to explain that the bylaws don't mean what they say"? Such comments seem to me to be unnecessarily rude and inflammatory. Is it possible to keep the conversations in this list to a slightly more professional level?
The by-laws clearly state that orgs-of-orgs are allowed in plain English (see my last e-mail). However, if I am misreading them or if there is some other points that we should be considering, then lets discuss it. But PLEASE let's discuss these in an adult manner.
I was there when that section of the ICANN Bylaws was drafted. The original intent was to say that only organizations having individual members would be allowed, but then, thinking at the way many groups are organized (and especially ISOC chapters, which were the most common user group active in Internet governance at that time), it was realized that you would need to allow ALSes to have organizational members as well, even if for-profit entities (e.g. sponsors or supporting companies), as long as they weren't the ones who would actually determine the positions of the group. This is why the "predominate" language ended up in the Bylaws - to give some degree of flexibility for what regards actual structures.
However, we specifically designed the system with the ALAC (not ICANN staff) certifying ALSes, because we wanted to avoid the risk of capture or spin by ICANN; the At Large was to be free to make ultimate case by case determinations on whether certain organizations were predominantly participated by individual users.
Even if I'm quite sure that, when the Bylaws were drafted, the intended meaning was "no orgs of orgs", it is true that one could read them in a more flexible manner, and that, in the end, it is the attitude that was meant to count, not the form. Now we have an official opinion by the ICANN General Counsel to confirm this, but anyway I don't think that by opening up to organizations that regroup smaller groups of users we would be violating the Bylaws principle that "participation by individuals must predominate"; it all depends on whether, in the end, the grassroots participation and interests of individuals are reflected in the policies of the leadership.
This is an evaluation that should be done case by case by the ALAC - and I don't think that the ALAC would need Bylaws text to reject, say, an ISP! But for example, we already accredited entities who are involved in ccTLD management as well, because in Africa there's often just one small group of people doing everything related to Internet governance for policy and practice; so that's really an evaluation that needs to be done for each case.
It is a subjective evaluation that IMHO, if in doubt, should tend to be liberal rather than restrictive: if people feel that this is their home, and we don't see gross mismatch between their attitudes and those of a class of average Internet users, nor risk of capture (which is anyway getting smaller and smaller as the number of ALSes grows), then we should let them in. -- 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
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
-Individuals should predominately represented -organizational membership within an ALS should be OK -this conversation is inflammatory -individual at-large membership should be either a) put into a subgroup or b) referred to an ALS
And I'm agreed with Randy on all points. I would also make explicit that in the case of orgs-within-orgs, the participating subgroups must themselves be membership bodies similar to the existing requirement of ALSs. I wouldn't want this to be used as a backdoor to allow in groups that otherwise would not qualify for acceptance. - Evan
I am agreed on all points including Evan's. Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Fri 4/20/2007 8:24 AM Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
-Individuals should predominately represented -organizational membership within an ALS should be OK -this conversation is inflammatory -individual at-large membership should be either a) put into a subgroup or b) referred to an ALS
And I'm agreed with Randy on all points. I would also make explicit that in the case of orgs-within-orgs, the participating subgroups must themselves be membership bodies similar to the existing requirement of ALSs. I wouldn't want this to be used as a backdoor to allow in groups that otherwise would not qualify for acceptance. - 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
OK, so on this point, America@Large was formed with the representation of individuals in mind. I'd like that if there are these individuals, we would like to contribute to their representation. -Randy Glass A@L On 4/20/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
-Individuals should predominately represented -organizational membership within an ALS should be OK -this conversation is inflammatory -individual at-large membership should be either a) put into a subgroup or b) referred to an ALS
And I'm agreed with Randy on all points.
I would also make explicit that in the case of orgs-within-orgs, the participating subgroups must themselves be membership bodies similar to the existing requirement of ALSs. I wouldn't want this to be used as a backdoor to allow in groups that otherwise would not qualify for acceptance.
- 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
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
participants (14)
-
Bret Fausett -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacob Malthouse -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John L -
Luc Faubert -
Michael Gurstein -
Michael Maranda -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wendy Seltzer