Potential Meeting in Vancouver
Dear All: As many of you know, a proposal was submitted to hold a meeting of ALSes in North America concurrently with the Vancouver PCNA summit later this month, at which ALSes and candidates for ALS accreditiation would meet and discuss issues surrounding forming a North American RALO as well as doing outreach at the PCNA itself. Where a region has not yet created a RALO and requests for funding of At-Large activities come in to ICANN, ICANN relies upon advice from the three regional representatives on the At-Large Advisory Committee and declines to fund meetings or events where the regional reps do not unanimously agree that it should be funded. In this case, the North American ALAC reps did not recommend that ICANN provide funding for this meeting, for reasons which they have previously stated on the list (rather than potentially putting words in their mouths I will leave it to them to state their reasons if they wish / are asked. They did state that if the meeting were to be primarily an outreach event for the Canadian community they had no objection. What I would like to suggest is that we could do the following: 1) Have a meeting space at the larger meeting, which if there's a cost ICANN could fund, to allow those of the ALS / candidate ALS community to meet in-person. Those present could also invite others at the PCNA who are interested in ICANN and At-Large to attend. 2) Connect via videoconference over the internet to that meeting for those unable to attend in person, but who wish to attend. We have access to an excellent Java-based tool which we are trying out at a meeting in Asia a few days later which could be used for this meeting too. 3) Use the meeting as an opportunity for those who are present, or who join the meeting remotely, to discuss RALO formation issues, but also more general outreach for those who are attending the larger PCNA meeting. Perhaps this might prove to be a compromise that would work? -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart http://www.alac.icann.org
No time to go into detail at the moment, but "YES" a compromise along those lines works for Telecommunities Canada (the "proposal" submitter), and we are prepared to host such a session some time during the PCNA Summit, Feb 23-25. http://www.2007summit.ca/ GG On 2-Feb-07, at 10:52 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear All:
As many of you know, a proposal was submitted to hold a meeting of ALSes in North America concurrently with the Vancouver PCNA summit later this month, at which ALSes and candidates for ALS accreditiation would meet and discuss issues surrounding forming a North American RALO as well as doing outreach at the PCNA itself.
Where a region has not yet created a RALO and requests for funding of At-Large activities come in to ICANN, ICANN relies upon advice from the three regional representatives on the At-Large Advisory Committee and declines to fund meetings or events where the regional reps do not unanimously agree that it should be funded.
In this case, the North American ALAC reps did not recommend that ICANN provide funding for this meeting, for reasons which they have previously stated on the list (rather than potentially putting words in their mouths I will leave it to them to state their reasons if they wish / are asked. They did state that if the meeting were to be primarily an outreach event for the Canadian community they had no objection.
What I would like to suggest is that we could do the following:
1) Have a meeting space at the larger meeting, which if there's a cost ICANN could fund, to allow those of the ALS / candidate ALS community to meet in-person. Those present could also invite others at the PCNA who are interested in ICANN and At-Large to attend.
2) Connect via videoconference over the internet to that meeting for those unable to attend in person, but who wish to attend. We have access to an excellent Java-based tool which we are trying out at a meeting in Asia a few days later which could be used for this meeting too.
3) Use the meeting as an opportunity for those who are present, or who join the meeting remotely, to discuss RALO formation issues, but also more general outreach for those who are attending the larger PCNA meeting.
Perhaps this might prove to be a compromise that would work?
1) Have a meeting space at the larger meeting, which if there's a cost ICANN could fund, to allow those of the ALS / candidate ALS community to meet in-person. Those present could also invite others at the PCNA who are interested in ICANN and At-Large to attend.
This is what we recommended. Like, or moreso than, most organizations, ICANN works largely via informal personal contacts. It will be vastly more useful to come to a real ICANN meeting where you can meet the board, staff, registries, registrars, and other constituencies than to a meeting of people with no ICANN experience. There is an ICANN meeting in Puerto Rico in June which would be good for people to attend. I believe I speak for the other U.S. ALS that have been around for a while, when I point out that there has been more than one attempt to build an ambitious at large organization, all of which quickly failed and live on as, at most, dusty web sites. The only thing an NARALO has to do is to select ALAC committee members, and the route most likely to lead to success is the smallest, lightest weight structure that can accomplish that, with no budget, no staff, and no meetings of its own. To the extent that we can get an MOU that commits ICANN to providing us with the stuff that a RALO is supposed to get, so much the better, but that still doesn't require a complicated structure. Also, as Wendy pointed out, if you want to participate in ICANN discussions and offer them advice, you can and should do so now. I was rather surprised that none of the groups who were asking for an in-person meeting submitted advice on the proposed WHOIS changes after I sent out a note encouraging it. CAUCE CA and CAUCE US did (we worked up a joint statement) even though neither of us have any interest in a RALO meeting. R's, John
[...] The only thing an NARALO has to do is to select ALAC committee members, [...]
John, again, the RALO can do much more than that if we want it to (see bylaws below). It's our call. From the perspective where we are trying to bring people on board the NARALO to influence ICANN's processes and outcomes and make their voice heard within ICANN, I'm not sure we're serving these constituents well by limiting NARALO's role to selecting 2 ALAC members. Granted, we should not entertain unrealistic expectations on the impact we can have within ICANN, but this is no reason to lobotomize NARALO. We've all agreed I think, that we want something light in structure. On NARALO's role, in addition to selecting 2 ALAC members, ICANN's bylaws at http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-02jun03.htm#XI-2.4g state that: j. The ALAC is also responsible, working in conjunction with the RALOs, for coordinating the following activities: 1. Keeping the community of individual Internet users informed about the significant news from ICANN; 2. Distributing (through posting or otherwise) an updated agenda, news about ICANN, and information about items in the ICANN policy-development process; 3. Promoting outreach activities in the community of individual Internet users; 4. Developing and maintaining on-going information and education programs, regarding ICANN and its work; 5 Establishing an outreach strategy about ICANN issues in each RALO's Region; 6. Making public, and analyzing, ICANN's proposed policies and its decisions and their (potential) regional impact and (potential) effect on individuals in the region; 7. Offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions among members of At-Large structures; and 8. Establishing mechanisms and processes that enable two-way communication between members of At-Large Structures and those involved in ICANN decision-making, so interested individuals can share their views on pending ICANN issues. _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John R Levine Sent: 2 février 2007 18:10 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver
1) Have a meeting space at the larger meeting, which if there's a cost ICANN could fund, to allow those of the ALS / candidate ALS community to meet in-person. Those present could also invite others at the PCNA who are interested in ICANN and At-Large to attend.
This is what we recommended. Like, or moreso than, most organizations, ICANN works largely via informal personal contacts. It will be vastly more useful to come to a real ICANN meeting where you can meet the board, staff, registries, registrars, and other constituencies than to a meeting of people with no ICANN experience. There is an ICANN meeting in Puerto Rico in June which would be good for people to attend.
I believe I speak for the other U.S. ALS that have been around for a while, when I point out that there has been more than one attempt to build an ambitious at large organization, all of which quickly failed and live on as, at most, dusty web sites. The only thing an NARALO has to do is to select ALAC committee members, and the route most likely to lead to success is the smallest, lightest weight structure that can accomplish that, with no budget, no staff, and no meetings of its own. To the extent that we can get an MOU that commits ICANN to providing us with the stuff that a RALO is supposed to get, so much the better, but that still doesn't require a complicated structure.
Also, as Wendy pointed out, if you want to participate in ICANN discussions and offer them advice, you can and should do so now. I was rather surprised that none of the groups who were asking for an in-person meeting submitted advice on the proposed WHOIS changes after I sent out a note encouraging it. CAUCE CA and CAUCE US did (we worked up a joint statement) even though neither of us have any interest in a RALO meeting.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
John, again, the RALO can do much more than that if we want it to
This would be a good time to review the dismal history of previous attempts to set up ambitious at-large organizations. All have them have started out just like you want to do and have fizzled once people have discovered how little effect a group like this can have on ICANN's entrenched, opaque bureaucracy, and how little relevance ICANN has to the experience of Internet users. There is no reason to think that another trip down this well trodden path would end up anywhere different. What's ICANN doing about all the porn spam they get? Nothing, not their job. What about all those fake messages from Caisse Desjardins trying to steal their life savings? Same answer. What about all that gross stuff we would rather our kids not see? Same answer, other than perhaps adding confusion when .XXX is set up. What about the prices that Videotron and Sympatico charge and their crummy service? Not ICANN's department. For any normal user, or groups of users, why should they waste any time or effort with ICANN? As I have tried to point out, if you think it is important to inform users about ICANN's activities and lobby ICANN, you can and should do that right now. The lack of a RALO is not preventing it, the presence of a RALO will not magically make it happen. If things aren't happening now, they're still not going to happen with a RALO. The reasons to make a RALO are to coordinate ICANN-related activities, and to select ALAC members. Lacking any activities that need coordinating, there is no reason to put any more effort into a RALO beyond the minimum needed to pick the ALAC members. So even though Vancouver is a swell place, and I have cousins there I haven't seen for a while, I cannot see any benefit to using ICANN's money and everyone's time for a meeting to set up yet another empty shell of an organization. R's, John PS: On the other hand, if the Canadian ALS want to do something useful and effective, how about telling the new Industry Minister to wake up and implement the recomendations in our spam taskforce report?
Hi-- I want to say a few things as the outgoing NA ALAC rep from the Nomcom process. I served on ALAC for two years, with my colleagues Wendy and John. It was great and I had a wonderful time and learned a lot. I came onto ALAC hoping to really try and add the end user's voice to the mix. I found ALAC in disarray. I started the icannalac website, I started a web-base voting tool, and basically concentrated on shoring up the infrastructure. Before my term ended in December 2006 I was even advocating a NARALO face to face meeting in spring 2007. But my term ended and I am not affiliated with any ALS. I entered as a real optimist; I left still hopeful but, well, disillusioned. You need to know that ICANN has a very narrow, rather geeky, mission. http://www.icann.org/new.html It is very boring to most people. Some people get involved with ICANN hoping it is something else. If you're hoping to fight spam or something, you're in the wrong place. Try IGF. http://www.intgovforum.org/ Things I learned: ICANN needs a "user's voice" to appear on its hierarchy chart. This lets the U.S. Department of Commerce (with which ICANN has a MoU - memorandum of Understanding--to actually assign names and numbers, etc http://icann.org/general/agreements.htm ) think that end users actually have a say in what happens with those names and numbers. It's true ALAC can have its say, but the "catch" is that ICANN doesn't have to listen, nor does it ever have to ask the users for advice. (Remember the name is the At Large ADVISORY Committee, so theoretically we're special). Sure they routinely ask for comments on things-- but not directly to ALAC--they issue a general request for comments from the entire Internet community. In reality, I am not convinced that a communique from ALAC holds any more weight than a comment from an interested individual. The ICANN board seldom even acknowledged receipt of our official memoranda on issues. So-- the "advisory" part has been ignored by ICANN, for the most part, in my opinion. Others may disagree. So what's the most important thing ALAC does? Actually, there are at least four things: 1. It appoints 5 members of the Nomcom. http://nomcom.icann.org/ The Nomcom is the real kingmaker--selecting a portion of the ICANN board seatholders. In the 2 years I was on, we appointed all outside people as our reps to the Nomcom. Only this year we discovered that ALAC members could fill these roles. I think this would be an excellent idea. 2. The ICANN Board is where the power is. ALAC has one non-voting seat on it, but it doesn't mean that the representative can't participate in discussions. (I believe, though, that the non-voting seatholders cannot serve on any committees.). Many of us believe that ALAC should have AT LEAST one voting seat on the ICANN board. Work for it. 3. ALAC can call for an "Issues Report." ICANN staff must then research a particular topic and write a report outlining the various issues and stakeholders involved in the particular issue. Issues Reports are important because they can be the first step in the Policy Development Process (PDP). http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA In Wellington (last March), ALAC asked for an issue report on Domain Name Tasting (add-drop grace period). Well, OK, ALAC couldn't decide if it wanted to start a PDP, so we asked for a staff advisory or something more watered-down than that. After months of delay we got a very short report that added nothing to our knowledge of the topic. ALAC staff at that time was an independent contractor with ICANN. I believe ALAC is still hoping to ask for a real issues report as a precursor to the PDP on the whole add-drop grace period mess. I know it came up again on a recent list posting and Bret replied he was working on something. The PDP is also where power resides. Use it. 4. Disseminate information on ICANN-- that means "warts and all." There are a lot of good people working in ICANN roles, but many times ...well, things just don't work right. Some say "there is no 'ICANN'--ICANN is just people." Hold that thought, but keep ICANN honest. I have to express disappointment about working with ICANN staff in the past. Although (congrats!) Nick is the new Executive Director of At-Large, and hopefully things will now be entirely different, he's still working under staff members that have been there for a long time. In my tenure on ALAC, there were many times some people (but not everyone) on ALAC felt that staff was actually working against it, trying to keep ALAC at the fringes and keep it from actually doing anything important. The allocation of the At Large budget is one way this happens. Make no mistake--At Large is more than just ALAC and the money is spent many ways. Make sure you understand how to make sure that the large budget allotted to At Large actually flows to the betterment of end-users. Don't do anything that is contrary to ALAC's mission. And again--keep ICANN honest. Hope this helps. It's not really clear what role RALOs will play, except to appoint ALAC members from the regions. As far as dissemination of info goes-- I think that's a requirement to be an ALS, so putting a RALO info structure in-between ALAC and the ALS's themselves doesn't seem to make much sense to me. RALO to RALO interaction may be more important though. I think it's important to get RALO reps to the ICANN meetings (spend that At-Large budget!). Again, be aware that what ICANN actually does and can do is so very technical that most people are bored to death. It's hard to get the end user interested--yet it is critically important to them. So, find a way to do that. best wishes, JP -- Jean Armour Polly http://www.netmom.com/
Jean: Great message - lots of insight. Thanks!! regards Robert On 3-Feb-07, at 3:43 PM, Jean Armour Polly wrote:
Hi-- I want to say a few things as the outgoing NA ALAC rep from the Nomcom process. I served on ALAC for two years, with my colleagues Wendy and John. It was great and I had a wonderful time and learned a lot.
Jean P. pointed out that the Canadian government posted a response to the .XXX proposal: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/msg00558.html It's quite good, says that ICANN is supposed to be a technical coordinator, and this proposal gets way too involved in content regulation. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
Can we post to other alac related lists? would be good idea to dialogue and correspond with other als collegues. case in point - i'd be interested in hearing what other als regions think of the canadian government document jean spotted .. regards Robert Can someone make sure the document gets passed to the orher On 3-Feb-07, at 5:17 PM, John L wrote:
Jean P. pointed out that the Canadian government posted a response to the .XXX proposal:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/msg00558.html
It's quite good, says that ICANN is supposed to be a technical coordinator, and this proposal gets way too involved in content regulation.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
Jean, Thanks a lot for sharing your experience. I think your notes provide us with real useful directions, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com 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 Jean Armour Polly Sent: 3 février 2007 15:43 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Notes from a Retired ALAC Member
Hi-- I want to say a few things as the outgoing NA ALAC rep from the Nomcom process. I served on ALAC for two years, with my colleagues Wendy and John. It was great and I had a wonderful time and learned a lot.
I came onto ALAC hoping to really try and add the end user's voice to the mix. I found ALAC in disarray. I started the icannalac website, I started a web-base voting tool, and basically concentrated on shoring up the infrastructure. Before my term ended in December 2006 I was even advocating a NARALO face to face meeting in spring 2007. But my term ended and I am not affiliated with any ALS. I entered as a real optimist; I left still hopeful but, well, disillusioned.
You need to know that ICANN has a very narrow, rather geeky, mission. http://www.icann.org/new.html It is very boring to most people. Some people get involved with ICANN hoping it is something else. If you're hoping to fight spam or something, you're in the wrong place. Try IGF. http://www.intgovforum.org/
Things I learned: ICANN needs a "user's voice" to appear on its hierarchy chart. This lets the U.S. Department of Commerce (with which ICANN has a MoU - memorandum of Understanding--to actually assign names and numbers, etc http://icann.org/general/agreements.htm ) think that end users actually have a say in what happens with those names and numbers.
It's true ALAC can have its say, but the "catch" is that ICANN doesn't have to listen, nor does it ever have to ask the users for advice. (Remember the name is the At Large ADVISORY Committee, so theoretically we're special). Sure they routinely ask for comments on things-- but not directly to ALAC--they issue a general request for comments from the entire Internet community. In reality, I am not convinced that a communique from ALAC holds any more weight than a comment from an interested individual. The ICANN board seldom even acknowledged receipt of our official memoranda on issues.
So-- the "advisory" part has been ignored by ICANN, for the most part, in my opinion. Others may disagree.
So what's the most important thing ALAC does? Actually, there are at least four things: 1. It appoints 5 members of the Nomcom. http://nomcom.icann.org/ The Nomcom is the real kingmaker--selecting a portion of the ICANN board seatholders. In the 2 years I was on, we appointed all outside people as our reps to the Nomcom. Only this year we discovered that ALAC members could fill these roles. I think this would be an excellent idea.
2. The ICANN Board is where the power is. ALAC has one non-voting seat on it, but it doesn't mean that the representative can't participate in discussions. (I believe, though, that the non-voting seatholders cannot serve on any committees.). Many of us believe that ALAC should have AT LEAST one voting seat on the ICANN board. Work for it.
3. ALAC can call for an "Issues Report." ICANN staff must then research a particular topic and write a report outlining the various issues and stakeholders involved in the particular issue. Issues Reports are important because they can be the first step in the Policy Development Process (PDP). http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA In Wellington (last March), ALAC asked for an issue report on Domain Name Tasting (add-drop grace period). Well, OK, ALAC couldn't decide if it wanted to start a PDP, so we asked for a staff advisory or something more watered-down than that. After months of delay we got a very short report that added nothing to our knowledge of the topic. ALAC staff at that time was an independent contractor with ICANN. I believe ALAC is still hoping to ask for a real issues report as a precursor to the PDP on the whole add-drop grace period mess. I know it came up again on a recent list posting and Bret replied he was working on something. The PDP is also where power resides. Use it.
4. Disseminate information on ICANN-- that means "warts and all." There are a lot of good people working in ICANN roles, but many times ...well, things just don't work right. Some say "there is no 'ICANN'--ICANN is just people." Hold that thought, but keep ICANN honest.
I have to express disappointment about working with ICANN staff in the past. Although (congrats!) Nick is the new Executive Director of At-Large, and hopefully things will now be entirely different, he's still working under staff members that have been there for a long time. In my tenure on ALAC, there were many times some people (but not everyone) on ALAC felt that staff was actually working against it, trying to keep ALAC at the fringes and keep it from actually doing anything important. The allocation of the At Large budget is one way this happens. Make no mistake--At Large is more than just ALAC and the money is spent many ways. Make sure you understand how to make sure that the large budget allotted to At Large actually flows to the betterment of end-users. Don't do anything that is contrary to ALAC's mission. And again--keep ICANN honest.
Hope this helps. It's not really clear what role RALOs will play, except to appoint ALAC members from the regions. As far as dissemination of info goes-- I think that's a requirement to be an ALS, so putting a RALO info structure in-between ALAC and the ALS's themselves doesn't seem to make much sense to me. RALO to RALO interaction may be more important though. I think it's important to get RALO reps to the ICANN meetings (spend that At-Large budget!). Again, be aware that what ICANN actually does and can do is so very technical that most people are bored to death. It's hard to get the end user interested--yet it is critically important to them. So, find a way to do that.
best wishes, JP -- Jean Armour Polly http://www.netmom.com/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
All,
You need to know that ICANN has a very narrow, rather geeky, mission.
I thought that ICANN's mission was what the Internet Community wants it to be. I also think people need to move beyond discouraging participation on the basis of a restricted mission. If one is clear on ICANN's role, does that mean one is only allowed to talk about ICANN issues? I talked about finance even though I was working in an environmental community in my past role. Of course environment was my primary role, but by putting yourself in a silo do you risk cutting yourself off from potentially valuable information and networks?
I have to express disappointment about working with ICANN staff in the past.
I am also on board as staff to aid Nick and yourselves. I have a long history of assisting committees at an International level. The global partnerships team aims to create a significant commitment to improving responsiveness and service.
It's true ALAC can have its say, but the "catch" is that ICANN doesn't have to listen, nor does it ever have to ask the users for advice.
This is also true of the Government Advisory Committee, however an analysis published more than a year ago of GAC recommendations suggested that most of their recommendations were accepted. My sense is that the reason for this is partly that governments are governments, but also a recognition of the number of governments participating. If ALAC could claim similar legitimacy surely it would be able to make a stronger case? This is where the question of transparency and accountability that Robert mentioned extends beyond ICANN staff, to the community itself. I am not often clear on the affiliations, motivations, etc. of many of the people I interact with at ICANN. ---- Luc Faubert wrote:
Jean,
Thanks a lot for sharing your experience. I think your notes provide us with real useful directions,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com
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 Jean Armour Polly Sent: 3 février 2007 15:43 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Notes from a Retired ALAC Member
Hi-- I want to say a few things as the outgoing NA ALAC rep from the Nomcom process. I served on ALAC for two years, with my colleagues Wendy and John. It was great and I had a wonderful time and learned a lot.
I came onto ALAC hoping to really try and add the end user's voice to the mix. I found ALAC in disarray. I started the icannalac website, I started a web-base voting tool, and basically concentrated on shoring up the infrastructure. Before my term ended in December 2006 I was even advocating a NARALO face to face meeting in spring 2007. But my term ended and I am not affiliated with any ALS. I entered as a real optimist; I left still hopeful but, well, disillusioned.
You need to know that ICANN has a very narrow, rather geeky, mission. http://www.icann.org/new.html It is very boring to most people. Some people get involved with ICANN hoping it is something else. If you're hoping to fight spam or something, you're in the wrong place. Try IGF. http://www.intgovforum.org/
Things I learned: ICANN needs a "user's voice" to appear on its hierarchy chart. This lets the U.S. Department of Commerce (with which ICANN has a MoU - memorandum of Understanding--to actually assign names and numbers, etc http://icann.org/general/agreements.htm ) think that end users actually have a say in what happens with those names and numbers.
It's true ALAC can have its say, but the "catch" is that ICANN doesn't have to listen, nor does it ever have to ask the users for advice. (Remember the name is the At Large ADVISORY Committee, so theoretically we're special). Sure they routinely ask for comments on things-- but not directly to ALAC--they issue a general request for comments from the entire Internet community. In reality, I am not convinced that a communique from ALAC holds any more weight than a comment from an interested individual. The ICANN board seldom even acknowledged receipt of our official memoranda on issues.
So-- the "advisory" part has been ignored by ICANN, for the most part, in my opinion. Others may disagree.
So what's the most important thing ALAC does? Actually, there are at least four things: 1. It appoints 5 members of the Nomcom. http://nomcom.icann.org/ The Nomcom is the real kingmaker--selecting a portion of the ICANN board seatholders. In the 2 years I was on, we appointed all outside people as our reps to the Nomcom. Only this year we discovered that ALAC members could fill these roles. I think this would be an excellent idea.
2. The ICANN Board is where the power is. ALAC has one non-voting seat on it, but it doesn't mean that the representative can't participate in discussions. (I believe, though, that the non-voting seatholders cannot serve on any committees.). Many of us believe that ALAC should have AT LEAST one voting seat on the ICANN board. Work for it.
3. ALAC can call for an "Issues Report." ICANN staff must then research a particular topic and write a report outlining the various issues and stakeholders involved in the particular issue. Issues Reports are important because they can be the first step in the Policy Development Process (PDP). http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA In Wellington (last March), ALAC asked for an issue report on Domain Name Tasting (add-drop grace period). Well, OK, ALAC couldn't decide if it wanted to start a PDP, so we asked for a staff advisory or something more watered-down than that. After months of delay we got a very short report that added nothing to our knowledge of the topic. ALAC staff at that time was an independent contractor with ICANN. I believe ALAC is still hoping to ask for a real issues report as a precursor to the PDP on the whole add-drop grace period mess. I know it came up again on a recent list posting and Bret replied he was working on something. The PDP is also where power resides. Use it.
4. Disseminate information on ICANN-- that means "warts and all." There are a lot of good people working in ICANN roles, but many times ...well, things just don't work right. Some say "there is no 'ICANN'--ICANN is just people." Hold that thought, but keep ICANN honest.
I have to express disappointment about working with ICANN staff in the past. Although (congrats!) Nick is the new Executive Director of At-Large, and hopefully things will now be entirely different, he's still working under staff members that have been there for a long time. In my tenure on ALAC, there were many times some people (but not everyone) on ALAC felt that staff was actually working against it, trying to keep ALAC at the fringes and keep it from actually doing anything important. The allocation of the At Large budget is one way this happens. Make no mistake--At Large is more than just ALAC and the money is spent many ways. Make sure you understand how to make sure that the large budget allotted to At Large actually flows to the betterment of end-users. Don't do anything that is contrary to ALAC's mission. And again--keep ICANN honest.
Hope this helps. It's not really clear what role RALOs will play, except to appoint ALAC members from the regions. As far as dissemination of info goes-- I think that's a requirement to be an ALS, so putting a RALO info structure in-between ALAC and the ALS's themselves doesn't seem to make much sense to me. RALO to RALO interaction may be more important though. I think it's important to get RALO reps to the ICANN meetings (spend that At-Large budget!). Again, be aware that what ICANN actually does and can do is so very technical that most people are bored to death. It's hard to get the end user interested--yet it is critically important to them. So, find a way to do that.
best wishes, JP -- Jean Armour Polly http://www.netmom.com/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
All,
You need to know that ICANN has a very narrow, rather geeky, mission.
I thought that ICANN's mission was what the Internet Community wants it to be. I also think people need to move beyond discouraging participation on the basis of a restricted mission. If one is clear on ICANN's role, does that mean one is only allowed to talk about ICANN issues? I talked about finance even though I was working in an environmental community in my past role. Of course environment was my primary role, but by putting yourself in a silo do you risk cutting yourself off from potentially valuable information and networks?
ICANN's original mission what that of a technical coordination body. Over the years, its taken on more . While some have been ok with that, others are quite concerned with apparent "mission creep". This was the subject of long discussions at the recent UN World Summit on the Information Society. The concern remains - as evident by some of the comments in the latest Government of Canada submission on the triple-X proposal. So changing the ICANN mission, well, isn't that easy. As for the ALAC role in ICANN, well, that perhaps can be more easily changed. My belief is that if people have concerns, that they articulate them and put forward specific recommendations. The timing for a discussion on and about ALAC role and mission couldn't be better, as the formal ALAC review I think will be starting this month. So if people have ideas on how things could be changed for the better - let's propose them. regards Robert
You need to know that ICANN has a very narrow, rather geeky, mission.
I thought that ICANN's mission was what the Internet Community wants it to be.
Good lord, no. Please read Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws, entitled MISSION, immediately. ICANN manages the DNS root, IP addresses, and port numbers. That's it. The only interesting part is the DNS root, since IP addresses are really managed by the RIRs, and port numbers are a technical wart. ICANN has a chronic problem with people engaged in wishful thinking who want it to be the giant something of the Internet, doing everything from stopping spam to bringing the 'net to the world's poor. Those are all fine goals, but they are most definitely not ICANN's job. ICANN has enough trouble doing the narrow job it is supposed to do without people trying to distract it with activities that are against its bylaws. For a good example of the mission creep problem, read the Canadian government's comments on the proposed .XXX agreement. It would put ICANN into the business of content regulation, which would both be politically bad news, and for which it has no expertise or qualification.
I also think people need to move beyond discouraging participation on the basis of a restricted mission.
I am astonished to see an ICANN staff member making such an ill-informed statement. ICANN's mission is what it is. If people care about the DNS and IP addresses, that's fine, they should participate. Anyone who signs up expecting it to be something else is wasting their time.
... an analysis published more than a year ago of GAC recommendations suggested that most of their recommendations were accepted. My sense is that the reason for this is partly that governments are governments, but also a recognition of the number of governments participating.
Don't be silly. It pays attention to governments because they are governments, who could make enormous trouble for ICANN if they were so inclined. ICANN may be chaotic, but it is not stupid. ICANN has a long and far from glorious history of marginalizing at-large participants since their first closed meeting in a hotel room at JFK airport. Danny Younger can chronicle this far better than I can. Anyone who wants to be part of at-large should be familiar with it, because it makes clear just how limited the role of at-large is and will be. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
I would love for us to get a better picture of the ways each of us, both individually, and though our organizations, are undertaking the tasks below and other related tasks. We need to map the talents, capacities and passions across the NA ALS's... and build stronger ties amongst us. I believe that such mapping should extend beyond the scope of what defines us as ALSs, and what will define the RALO in relation to ICANN. Of course my perspective is that of Community Networking and Network Weaving... and my passion is for communications policy and how it intersects with daily life. That is where we need to be doing outreach and education. I dont think the Internet is principally about arcane issues, and I dont think our role is limited to such arcana either. -MM On 2/3/07, Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
[...] The only thing an NARALO has to do is to select ALAC committee members, [...]
John, again, the RALO can do much more than that if we want it to (see bylaws below). It's our call. From the perspective where we are trying to bring people on board the NARALO to influence ICANN's processes and outcomes and make their voice heard within ICANN, I'm not sure we're serving these constituents well by limiting NARALO's role to selecting 2 ALAC members. Granted, we should not entertain unrealistic expectations on the impact we can have within ICANN, but this is no reason to lobotomize NARALO.
We've all agreed I think, that we want something light in structure.
On NARALO's role, in addition to selecting 2 ALAC members, ICANN's bylaws at http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-02jun03.htm#XI-2.4gstate that:
j. The ALAC is also responsible, working in conjunction with the RALOs, for coordinating the following activities:
1. Keeping the community of individual Internet users informed about the significant news from ICANN;
2. Distributing (through posting or otherwise) an updated agenda, news about ICANN, and information about items in the ICANN policy-development process;
3. Promoting outreach activities in the community of individual Internet users;
4. Developing and maintaining on-going information and education programs, regarding ICANN and its work;
5 Establishing an outreach strategy about ICANN issues in each RALO's Region;
6. Making public, and analyzing, ICANN's proposed policies and its decisions and their (potential) regional impact and (potential) effect on individuals in the region;
7. Offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions among members of At-Large structures; and
8. Establishing mechanisms and processes that enable two-way communication between members of At-Large Structures and those involved in ICANN decision-making, so interested individuals can share their views on pending ICANN issues.
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com
www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John R Levine Sent: 2 février 2007 18:10 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver
1) Have a meeting space at the larger meeting, which if there's a cost ICANN could fund, to allow those of the ALS / candidate ALS community to meet in-person. Those present could also invite others at the PCNA who are interested in ICANN and At-Large to attend.
This is what we recommended. Like, or moreso than, most organizations, ICANN works largely via informal personal contacts. It will be vastly more useful to come to a real ICANN meeting where you can meet the board, staff, registries, registrars, and other constituencies than to a meeting of people with no ICANN experience. There is an ICANN meeting in Puerto Rico in June which would be good for people to attend.
I believe I speak for the other U.S. ALS that have been around for a while, when I point out that there has been more than one attempt to build an ambitious at large organization, all of which quickly failed and live on as, at most, dusty web sites. The only thing an NARALO has to do is to select ALAC committee members, and the route most likely to lead to success is the smallest, lightest weight structure that can accomplish that, with no budget, no staff, and no meetings of its own. To the extent that we can get an MOU that commits ICANN to providing us with the stuff that a RALO is supposed to get, so much the better, but that still doesn't require a complicated structure.
Also, as Wendy pointed out, if you want to participate in ICANN discussions and offer them advice, you can and should do so now. I was rather surprised that none of the groups who were asking for an in-person meeting submitted advice on the proposed WHOIS changes after I sent out a note encouraging it. CAUCE CA and CAUCE US did (we worked up a joint statement) even though neither of us have any interest in a RALO meeting.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Nick, If I understand well, you're telling us that Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, the North American ALAC reps have decided that a NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea? Given that their mandate includes -- at least for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats -- "assist[ing] in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)" (see "Responsibilities of the Interim ALAC" at http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/ <http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/> ), I guess I'm missing something here. I would appreciate explanations from our 3 ALAC reps, as I don't recall them stating their views on this list. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com <http://www.gfisolutions.com/> www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> 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 Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: 2 février 2007 13:53 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver Dear All: As many of you know, a proposal was submitted to hold a meeting of ALSes in North America concurrently with the Vancouver PCNA summit later this month, at which ALSes and candidates for ALS accreditiation would meet and discuss issues surrounding forming a North American RALO as well as doing outreach at the PCNA itself. Where a region has not yet created a RALO and requests for funding of At-Large activities come in to ICANN, ICANN relies upon advice from the three regional representatives on the At-Large Advisory Committee and declines to fund meetings or events where the regional reps do not unanimously agree that it should be funded. In this case, the North American ALAC reps did not recommend that ICANN provide funding for this meeting, for reasons which they have previously stated on the list (rather than potentially putting words in their mouths I will leave it to them to state their reasons if they wish / are asked. They did state that if the meeting were to be primarily an outreach event for the Canadian community they had no objection. What I would like to suggest is that we could do the following: 1) Have a meeting space at the larger meeting, which if there's a cost ICANN could fund, to allow those of the ALS / candidate ALS community to meet in-person. Those present could also invite others at the PCNA who are interested in ICANN and At-Large to attend. 2) Connect via videoconference over the internet to that meeting for those unable to attend in person, but who wish to attend. We have access to an excellent Java-based tool which we are trying out at a meeting in Asia a few days later which could be used for this meeting too. 3) Use the meeting as an opportunity for those who are present, or who join the meeting remotely, to discuss RALO formation issues, but also more general outreach for those who are attending the larger PCNA meeting. Perhaps this might prove to be a compromise that would work? -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart http://www.alac.icann.org
Luc Faubert wrote:
Nick,
If I understand well, you're telling us that Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, the North American ALAC reps have decided that a NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea?
Correct. Less important than our individual opinions, we've listened to the ALSs from the United States and Canada, and heard that none of the U.S.-based organizations who participated in discussion feels that an in-person meeting would be productive. Thus, I think the meeting even as proposed sounds more like a Canadian groups' gathering than a multi-national RALO formation meeting. That's worthwhile, and even worth ICANN's sponsorship, but it's not a RALO-formation meeting. The U.S. organizations participating in the discussion, on the lists and on the teleconference, stated their opinions that the work of RALO formation should done mostly online, given that the organization will have to do most of its work online. Given that, that none of them was able to or willing to attend the meeting even with the offer of ICANN funding, and that a RALO, to be formed, will have to have support from both countries, it didn't seem RALO-formation was the right name for this gathering, and since that's how it was submitted, we recommended against funding as such. By contrast, many more ALSs see it as worth their while to come to an ICANN meeting, where they'll meet not only other ALSs from their region, but the players in ICANN's larger circle. Whether they'll be ready for RALO-formation by then or not, that seems like a better reason to support long-distance travel. --Wendy
Given that their mandate includes -- at least for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats -- "assist[ing] in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)" (see "Responsibilities of the Interim ALAC" at http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/ <http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/> ), I guess I'm missing something here.
I would appreciate explanations from our 3 ALAC reps, as I don't recall them stating their views on this list. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com <http://www.gfisolutions.com/>
www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> 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 Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: 2 février 2007 13:53 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver
Dear All:
As many of you know, a proposal was submitted to hold a meeting of ALSes in North America concurrently with the Vancouver PCNA summit later this month, at which ALSes and candidates for ALS accreditiation would meet and discuss issues surrounding forming a North American RALO as well as doing outreach at the PCNA itself.
Where a region has not yet created a RALO and requests for funding of At-Large activities come in to ICANN, ICANN relies upon advice from the three regional representatives on the At-Large Advisory Committee and declines to fund meetings or events where the regional reps do not unanimously agree that it should be funded.
In this case, the North American ALAC reps did not recommend that ICANN provide funding for this meeting, for reasons which they have previously stated on the list (rather than potentially putting words in their mouths I will leave it to them to state their reasons if they wish / are asked. They did state that if the meeting were to be primarily an outreach event for the Canadian community they had no objection.
What I would like to suggest is that we could do the following:
1) Have a meeting space at the larger meeting, which if there's a cost ICANN could fund, to allow those of the ALS / candidate ALS community to meet in-person. Those present could also invite others at the PCNA who are interested in ICANN and At-Large to attend.
2) Connect via videoconference over the internet to that meeting for those unable to attend in person, but who wish to attend. We have access to an excellent Java-based tool which we are trying out at a meeting in Asia a few days later which could be used for this meeting too.
3) Use the meeting as an opportunity for those who are present, or who join the meeting remotely, to discuss RALO formation issues, but also more general outreach for those who are attending the larger PCNA meeting.
Perhaps this might prove to be a compromise that would work?
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart http://www.alac.icann.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Hi all, I keep reading about a telephone conference that was held. I hate to ask a stupid question but what telephone conf was this? Are there regular ones that we are all supposed to attend or was this just for the US? Thanks, Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Fri 2/2/2007 5:01 PM To: Luc Faubert Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver Luc Faubert wrote:
Nick,
If I understand well, you're telling us that Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, the North American ALAC reps have decided that a NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea?
Correct. Less important than our individual opinions, we've listened to the ALSs from the United States and Canada, and heard that none of the U.S.-based organizations who participated in discussion feels that an in-person meeting would be productive. Thus, I think the meeting even as proposed sounds more like a Canadian groups' gathering than a multi-national RALO formation meeting. That's worthwhile, and even worth ICANN's sponsorship, but it's not a RALO-formation meeting. The U.S. organizations participating in the discussion, on the lists and on the teleconference, stated their opinions that the work of RALO formation should done mostly online, given that the organization will have to do most of its work online. Given that, that none of them was able to or willing to attend the meeting even with the offer of ICANN funding, and that a RALO, to be formed, will have to have support from both countries, it didn't seem RALO-formation was the right name for this gathering, and since that's how it was submitted, we recommended against funding as such. By contrast, many more ALSs see it as worth their while to come to an ICANN meeting, where they'll meet not only other ALSs from their region, but the players in ICANN's larger circle. Whether they'll be ready for RALO-formation by then or not, that seems like a better reason to support long-distance travel. --Wendy
Given that their mandate includes -- at least for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats -- "assist[ing] in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)" (see "Responsibilities of the Interim ALAC" at http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/ <http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/> ), I guess I'm missing something here.
I would appreciate explanations from our 3 ALAC reps, as I don't recall them stating their views on this list. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com <http://www.gfisolutions.com/>
www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> 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 Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: 2 février 2007 13:53 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver
Dear All:
As many of you know, a proposal was submitted to hold a meeting of ALSes in North America concurrently with the Vancouver PCNA summit later this month, at which ALSes and candidates for ALS accreditiation would meet and discuss issues surrounding forming a North American RALO as well as doing outreach at the PCNA itself.
Where a region has not yet created a RALO and requests for funding of At-Large activities come in to ICANN, ICANN relies upon advice from the three regional representatives on the At-Large Advisory Committee and declines to fund meetings or events where the regional reps do not unanimously agree that it should be funded.
In this case, the North American ALAC reps did not recommend that ICANN provide funding for this meeting, for reasons which they have previously stated on the list (rather than potentially putting words in their mouths I will leave it to them to state their reasons if they wish / are asked. They did state that if the meeting were to be primarily an outreach event for the Canadian community they had no objection.
What I would like to suggest is that we could do the following:
1) Have a meeting space at the larger meeting, which if there's a cost ICANN could fund, to allow those of the ALS / candidate ALS community to meet in-person. Those present could also invite others at the PCNA who are interested in ICANN and At-Large to attend.
2) Connect via videoconference over the internet to that meeting for those unable to attend in person, but who wish to attend. We have access to an excellent Java-based tool which we are trying out at a meeting in Asia a few days later which could be used for this meeting too.
3) Use the meeting as an opportunity for those who are present, or who join the meeting remotely, to discuss RALO formation issues, but also more general outreach for those who are attending the larger PCNA meeting.
Perhaps this might prove to be a compromise that would work?
-- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart http://www.alac.icann.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Darlene, There was a call about a month ago to discuss a possible NARALO formation meeting in Vancouver in February. Telecommunities Canada proposed to organize the meeting, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com <http://www.gfisolutions.com/> www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> 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: 3 février 2007 13:35 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver Hi all, I keep reading about a telephone conference that was held. I hate to ask a stupid question but what telephone conf was this? Are there regular ones that we are all supposed to attend or was this just for the US? Thanks, Darlene ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Fri 2/2/2007 5:01 PM To: Luc Faubert Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver Luc Faubert wrote: > Nick, > > If I understand well, you're telling us that Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, the North American ALAC reps have decided that a NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea? Correct. Less important than our individual opinions, we've listened to the ALSs from the United States and Canada, and heard that none of the U.S.-based organizations who participated in discussion feels that an in-person meeting would be productive. Thus, I think the meeting even as proposed sounds more like a Canadian groups' gathering than a multi-national RALO formation meeting. That's worthwhile, and even worth ICANN's sponsorship, but it's not a RALO-formation meeting. The U.S. organizations participating in the discussion, on the lists and on the teleconference, stated their opinions that the work of RALO formation should done mostly online, given that the organization will have to do most of its work online. Given that, that none of them was able to or willing to attend the meeting even with the offer of ICANN funding, and that a RALO, to be formed, will have to have support from both countries, it didn't seem RALO-formation was the right name for this gathering, and since that's how it was submitted, we recommended against funding as such. By contrast, many more ALSs see it as worth their while to come to an ICANN meeting, where they'll meet not only other ALSs from their region, but the players in ICANN's larger circle. Whether they'll be ready for RALO-formation by then or not, that seems like a better reason to support long-distance travel. --Wendy > Given that their mandate includes -- at least for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats -- "assist[ing] in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)" (see "Responsibilities of the Interim ALAC" at http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/ <http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/> ), I guess I'm missing something here. > > I would appreciate explanations from our 3 ALAC reps, as I don't recall them stating their views on this list. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, > > _________________________________________ > Luc Faubert > Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / > IT governance and change management consulting > GFI Solutions > +1 514 236 5129 > www.GFISolutions.com <http://www.gfisolutions.com/> > > www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> > 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 Nick Ashton-Hart > Sent: 2 février 2007 13:53 > To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Potential Meeting in Vancouver > > > Dear All: > > As many of you know, a proposal was submitted to hold a meeting of ALSes in North America concurrently with the Vancouver PCNA summit later this month, at which ALSes and candidates for ALS accreditiation would meet and discuss issues surrounding forming a North American RALO as well as doing outreach at the PCNA itself. > > Where a region has not yet created a RALO and requests for funding of At-Large activities come in to ICANN, ICANN relies upon advice from the three regional representatives on the At-Large Advisory Committee and declines to fund meetings or events where the regional reps do not unanimously agree that it should be funded. > > In this case, the North American ALAC reps did not recommend that ICANN provide funding for this meeting, for reasons which they have previously stated on the list (rather than potentially putting words in their mouths I will leave it to them to state their reasons if they wish / are asked. They did state that if the meeting were to be primarily an outreach event for the Canadian community they had no objection. > > > What I would like to suggest is that we could do the following: > > 1) Have a meeting space at the larger meeting, which if there's a cost ICANN could fund, to allow those of the ALS / candidate ALS community to meet in-person. Those present could also invite others at the PCNA who are interested in ICANN and At-Large to attend. > > 2) Connect via videoconference over the internet to that meeting for those unable to attend in person, but who wish to attend. We have access to an excellent Java-based tool which we are trying out at a meeting in Asia a few days later which could be used for this meeting too. > > 3) Use the meeting as an opportunity for those who are present, or who join the meeting remotely, to discuss RALO formation issues, but also more general outreach for those who are attending the larger PCNA meeting. > > Perhaps this might prove to be a compromise that would work? > > > -- > Regards, > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director, At-Large > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > PO Box 32160 > London N4 2XY > United Kingdom > Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org > Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > http://www.alac.icann.org > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
If I understand well, you're telling us that Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, the North American ALAC reps have decided that a NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea?
Yes, that is what we said. An in-person meeting would be counterproductive and not a good use of ICANN's money.
Given that their mandate includes -- at least for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats -- "assist[ing] in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)"
As I have said several times, a successful RALO has to operate on-line. If we can't form it on-line, we're not going to be able to run it on-line. If we want a RALO, We will continue to work on-line. There are already several failed ICANN at-large organizations that planned to have a complex structure and physical meetings. There is no point in making another one. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Friends, I also "participated" in the telephone call earlier this month where a number of the reps and a number of the US ALS's voiced opinions against the meeting. For some strange reason whether technical or otherwise I could not get a word in edgewise on the call. I wanted to express the importance of a face to face meeting - as a US applicant ALS - and I was frankly shocked at the disinterest in such a meeting or the sense that meeting face to face is unimportant. If face to face meetings are not of use or import in these situations, by that logic I dont see why any ICANN or ICANN related meeting should be face to face. That is not my position however. Face to Face meeting is critical at this juncture. And I strongly concur with the idea of freedom of the RALO to do as much as it can generate the energy to do. Some of you may wonder - who is this speaking - and what stake does he have in this process, and more to the point, who is he to chime in at this late stage, Well, isnt that the point? Arent we at a late stage? Shouldnt there have been more concerted effort for the North American RALO to have been formed by now, or at least for the NA ALS's to have been working together in a meaningful way? I really dont think that ICANN/ICANN-ALAC mechanism or tools not being in place excuses the lack of such activity. Any number of the existing parties could have reached out for us (or the group here before some of our arrival) to start working together sooner towards our common mssion, let alone the actual formation of the RALO. As to the lateness of the arrival of our particular group (AFCN) to this discussion - I wish to address this point right off the bat. (I know no one would raise this particular point, as ALS formation is open ended, and there is room for more ALS activity throughout our region, and we should be encouraging more groups that will share our burden to get on board -- (have we?)) We have followed this general space for some time. Our capacity is largely Volunteer, as I imagine is the case for a number of you (and my applause, and my sympathies, we know this work is important). But the big point I wish to make in relation to this is how little awareness many relevant organizations and constituencies across the US have of this process. (Speaking only for my own country) It seems to me wrongheaded to say that timing is not right, or that face to face meetings should be avoided. Figuring out how to build Trust in a new organization is something the participants need to do for themselves. It is time to generate energy on issues of Internet policy, and we must endeavor to educate the public through as much outreach as we can muster. As a RALO, we would be much better off building trust and coordinating our efforts. Best Regards to those who wish for a vibrant RALO in North America Michael Maranda AFCN On 2 Feb 2007 18:13:54 -0500, John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
If I understand well, you're telling us that Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, the North American ALAC reps have decided that a NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea?
Yes, that is what we said. An in-person meeting would be counterproductive and not a good use of ICANN's money.
Given that their mandate includes -- at least for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats -- "assist[ing] in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)"
As I have said several times, a successful RALO has to operate on-line. If we can't form it on-line, we're not going to be able to run it on-line.
If we want a RALO, We will continue to work on-line.
There are already several failed ICANN at-large organizations that planned to have a complex structure and physical meetings. There is no point in making another one.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
If face to face meetings are not of use or import in these situations, by that logic I dont see why any ICANN or ICANN related meeting should be face to face.
ICANN, more than any other organization I have ever tried to deal with, works primarily via informal contacts with the people who are in a position of authority, the ICANN board and the permanent staff. The point of having a meeting is to schmooze with those people, and to a lesser extent with the government officials to whom the board has to pay attention, and with the paid formal or informal lobbyists who are better at schmoozing them than we are. The only time the ALAC meets is in conjunction with an ICANN meeting, because there'd be no point otherwise. There is doubly no point in a standalone NARALO meeting. If people are going to spend all that time and money, the only sensible time and place to do so is when ICANN is meeting in Puerto Rico later this year, when you can have a chance to get to know the people who matter.
Face to Face meeting is critical at this juncture.
To do what? As several people including me have said more than once, a RALO isn't going to make anything happen that isn't going to happen anyway. If you think it's important to tell people about ICANN, you should do so now, and not use the lack of a RALO as an excuse. But see the rest of this message first.
I really dont think that ICANN/ICANN-ALAC mechanism or tools not being in place excuses the lack of such activity. Any number of the existing parties could have reached out for us (or the group here before some of our arrival) to start working together sooner towards our common mssion, let alone the actual formation of the RALO.
Right. Why do you think that hasn't happened? Except for Nick and Jacob, both of whom only started working at ICANN recently, we're all unpaid volunteers with day jobs doing something else. Who do you think should have been doing this work? Why? The reality is that most of what ICANN does is irrelevant to the vast majority of Internet users. My .aero domain is swell, but I don't think the 99% of Internet users who have never heard of .aero are any worse off for it. There's a few things that matter, personal privacy issues like WHOIS policy (for better or worse, as previously argued here), and perhaps .XXX if you think it will make porn more or less available and you think that's important. Other than that, it's just arcana. I happen to think that the new ICANN-Verisign agreement that lets them raise the price of .COM domains every year is bad policy due to the effect it has on other Internet businesses, but for at-large users, it's a non-event. The vast majority will never register a domain; for the small minority that do, it'll mean they pay $11/yr rather than $10/yr. BFD. There are all sorts of other issues related to the Internet, from spam and phishing to broadband network neutrality to access for people in poor countries (of which the NA region has none, only relatively poor parts of rich countries.) But you know what? That's not what ICANN does, nor what a RALO does. Please, go read the first section of the ICANN bylaws, the part that starts MISSION, and then tell us how relevant that mission is to your members and other Internet users. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Frankly, I have read that material. Are you asking me to reread it? And my point is that a sound RALO can be a space for members of the RALO to connect on issues wider than just ICANN, and if we are trly about educating in any meaningful way I dont see how we can avoid that. I also disagree on the degree to which all of this is arcana. And as far as people getting together mainly to schmooze ... I think that varies depending on the purpose for which a crowd convenes.... think self selection. I just returned from an Open Space event, and we worked together from 9 am til 2 am for three days straight - all of us volunteers and all of us with a social purpose. It doesnt sound to me like you see any value in a RALO to begin with. Is that your view? On 2/7/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
If face to face meetings are not of use or import in these situations, by that logic I dont see why any ICANN or ICANN related meeting should be face to face.
ICANN, more than any other organization I have ever tried to deal with, works primarily via informal contacts with the people who are in a position of authority, the ICANN board and the permanent staff. The point of having a meeting is to schmooze with those people, and to a lesser extent with the government officials to whom the board has to pay attention, and with the paid formal or informal lobbyists who are better at schmoozing them than we are. The only time the ALAC meets is in conjunction with an ICANN meeting, because there'd be no point otherwise.
There is doubly no point in a standalone NARALO meeting. If people are going to spend all that time and money, the only sensible time and place to do so is when ICANN is meeting in Puerto Rico later this year, when you can have a chance to get to know the people who matter.
Face to Face meeting is critical at this juncture.
To do what? As several people including me have said more than once, a RALO isn't going to make anything happen that isn't going to happen anyway. If you think it's important to tell people about ICANN, you should do so now, and not use the lack of a RALO as an excuse. But see the rest of this message first.
I really dont think that ICANN/ICANN-ALAC mechanism or tools not being in place excuses the lack of such activity. Any number of the existing parties could have reached out for us (or the group here before some of our arrival) to start working together sooner towards our common mssion, let alone the actual formation of the RALO.
Right. Why do you think that hasn't happened? Except for Nick and Jacob, both of whom only started working at ICANN recently, we're all unpaid volunteers with day jobs doing something else. Who do you think should have been doing this work? Why?
The reality is that most of what ICANN does is irrelevant to the vast majority of Internet users. My .aero domain is swell, but I don't think the 99% of Internet users who have never heard of .aero are any worse off for it. There's a few things that matter, personal privacy issues like WHOIS policy (for better or worse, as previously argued here), and perhaps .XXX if you think it will make porn more or less available and you think that's important.
Other than that, it's just arcana. I happen to think that the new ICANN-Verisign agreement that lets them raise the price of .COM domains every year is bad policy due to the effect it has on other Internet businesses, but for at-large users, it's a non-event. The vast majority will never register a domain; for the small minority that do, it'll mean they pay $11/yr rather than $10/yr. BFD.
There are all sorts of other issues related to the Internet, from spam and phishing to broadband network neutrality to access for people in poor countries (of which the NA region has none, only relatively poor parts of rich countries.) But you know what? That's not what ICANN does, nor what a RALO does. Please, go read the first section of the ICANN bylaws, the part that starts MISSION, and then tell us how relevant that mission is to your members and other Internet users.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Frankly, I have read that material. Are you asking me to reread it?
I guess so, since there seems to be a lack of clarity about ICANN's narrow mission.
And my point is that a sound RALO can be a space for members of the RALO to connect on issues wider than just ICANN, and if we are trly about educating in any meaningful way I dont see how we can avoid that.
So connect, already. We have a mailing list, we have wikis. What do you expect a RALO to do differently? It's going to be the same group of unpaid people.
I just returned from an Open Space event, and we worked together from 9 am til 2 am for three days straight - all of us volunteers and all of us with a social purpose.
That sounds great, but I don't see what its connection to DNS management is. Keeping in mind ICANN's narrow mission, which which you say you are familiar, what social purpose do you expect a RALO to have?
It doesnt sound to me like you see any value in a RALO to begin with. Is that your view?
We covered that in e-mail a couple of days ago, so there shouldn't be any need to repeat it now. R's, John
Much depends on the spirit in which something is constituted, I spend the bulk of my time "connecting" and I believe that is what I am doing, if not with you then with others. Understanding ICANN's "narrow" mission need not restrict a RALO from being a framework for wider scope of coordination. And it's just that framing of narrowness that allows our voice to be blocked on matters of importance. And you make no note of any merit in the trust building function of face to face. There are many aspects of this policy which though dry and abstruse when presented a certain way have very tangible effects on people and organizations. I spend a lot of my time explaining that to people. I dont think my interpretation of the situation is off the mark or beyond the scope of the ALAC, the RALO or this list. And I dont think a RTFM was an appropriate response here. MM On 2/7/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Frankly, I have read that material. Are you asking me to reread it?
I guess so, since there seems to be a lack of clarity about ICANN's narrow mission.
And my point is that a sound RALO can be a space for members of the RALO to connect on issues wider than just ICANN, and if we are trly about educating in any meaningful way I dont see how we can avoid that.
So connect, already. We have a mailing list, we have wikis. What do you expect a RALO to do differently? It's going to be the same group of unpaid people.
I just returned from an Open Space event, and we worked together from 9 am til 2 am for three days straight - all of us volunteers and all of us with a social purpose.
That sounds great, but I don't see what its connection to DNS management is. Keeping in mind ICANN's narrow mission, which which you say you are familiar, what social purpose do you expect a RALO to have?
It doesnt sound to me like you see any value in a RALO to begin with. Is that your view?
We covered that in e-mail a couple of days ago, so there shouldn't be any need to repeat it now.
R's, John
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Understanding ICANN's "narrow" mission need not restrict a RALO from being a framework for wider scope of coordination. And it's just that framing of narrowness that allows our voice to be blocked on matters of importance.
What important matters do you feel you are blocked from voicing? Why do you think a RALO will solve this problem? I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. These are real questions. For some reason, people chronically want to endow ICANN and its related sub-organs with mystical properties that have nothing to do with reality. All ICANN does is manage the DNS top level domains and some other geek stuff. Really. If you want to set up an organization that does other important stuff, that is a fine idea, but don't confuse it with a RALO. R's, John
Don't confuse me with other chronic "people" .... I am not looking for mystical bodies here. If you dont see that the realm that ICANN covers is intricately related to a host of other matters that are best dealt with in the same conceptual space, even if different entities may have jurisdiction or authority over them and will require our addressing different bodies in a coordinated way then perhaps you cant see the big picture. I dont know how to take your tone, and that underscores my point regarding 1) building trust (which you never bother to address) and 2) the spirit in which an organization is constituted (also not of interest to you, apparently). I dont know what boundaries you think you are protecting. Show us where it is stated in any document that a RALO cannot coordinate among members on any matter it deems worthy? Or is that the manner you would like it to take shape? I find it distressing to see this willingness to divide issues which belong together and which deserve treatment (and public education) in related context, even tho as I have stated above, they fall under different bodies. None of your comments demonstrate any necessary restriction on the RALO doing as I have suggested, you are merely expressing a position you have some stake in. It would be much better for all if you were clear that your statements are just an expression of that position, not a matter of fact. Clearly, if you differentiate between what circumscribes any as yet unformed RALO and how you think it should be circumscribed, we wouldnt need to have this conversation in this way, and certainly not in this tone. But I suppose it is important to get a look at what positions the active parties hold. On 2/7/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
For some reason, people chronically want to endow ICANN and its related sub-organs with mystical properties that have nothing to do with reality. All ICANN does is manage the DNS top level domains and some other geek stuff. Really.
If you want to set up an organization that does other important stuff, that is a fine idea, but don't confuse it with a RALO.
R's, John
If you dont see that the realm that ICANN covers is intricately related to a host of other matters that are best dealt with in the same conceptual space, even if different entities may have jurisdiction or authority over them and will require our addressing different bodies in a coordinated way then perhaps you cant see the big picture.
I fear my problem is that my imagination is sadly limited by actual experience working on Internet issues. I will admit that I have never spent two intense days at a conference envisioning open space collaboration. On the other hand, I've written a book that millions of people have used to get onto the 'Net, I've been in several PBS shows that teach people about the Internet, I've been a board member of and published the online newsletter for the largest grass roots anti-spam organization in the world, I've testifed in front of the US Senate about spyware legislation and in front of the FTC on spam legislation, participated in the broad-based international Anti-Spyware Coalition, I've been a member of Industry Canada's multi stakeholder anti-spam taskforce, and I've spent over a year on the ALAC observing ICANN's processes and lack thereof up close. (In case you were wondering, this is all paid for out of my own pocket, other than sometimes getting travel reimbursed, and Industry Canada paying me a little bit to write and edit part of a report.) None of this needed a RALO. Indeed, a RALO wouldn't have made a bit of difference to any of it. I also know enough of the history of ICANN and the people involved in that history to know about the dreams of expansive user organizations, all of which went nowhere for the reasons I've been telling you about. None of this is a secret; anyone interested in ICANN and Internet governance should be familiar with it to avoid going down the same unproductive paths that lead to predictable failure. Take a look at http://www.icannatlarge.com, which has been gathering dust for the past five years. If you believe that a comprehensive Internet user organization is a good idea, here it is, already in existence, ready to go, with a membership including a thousand people who care deeply about ICANN and the Internet, and a modest amount of money in the bank, lacking only leadership with unlimited time and energy to devote to it. What would your big picture NARALO be that icannatlarge isn't? Why don't you work with icannatlarge now? R's, John
I was offline most of last week, and am just starting to catch up. My position was not quite as you stated. I felt that a NARALO formation meeting was not appropriate at this time. I was quite happy to have the meeting take place with funding from ICANN, but as a meeting primarily aimed at Canadian ALSs. I think that for a NARALO to have a chance of succeeding, there needs to be more US-based ALSs in existence and participating in the RALO creation process. I agree with John that their should be significant progress made electronically, although I believe that a face-to-face meeting prior to the formal signing would be a good thing. However, having the definitive NARALO formation meeting with so few US ALSs and only one in attendance is both premature and a recipe of failure. For the record, I could not attend the meeting due to other commitments. Alan At 02/02/2007 03:14 PM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Nick,
If I understand well, you're telling us that Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, the North American ALAC reps have decided that a NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea?
Given that their mandate includes -- at least for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats -- "assist[ing] in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)" (see "Responsibilities of the Interim ALAC" at <http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/>http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/), I guess I'm missing something here.
I would appreciate explanations from our 3 ALAC reps, as I don't recall them stating their views on this list. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken,
participants (13)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Garth Graham -
Jacob Malthouse -
Jean Armour Polly -
John L -
John R Levine
-
lists＠privaterra.info -
Luc Faubert -
Michael Maranda -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Robert Guerra
-
Thompson, Darlene -
Wendy Seltzer