[ALAC] ALS decertification

Eduardo Diaz eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com
Tue May 28 23:48:08 UTC 2013


Salanieta:

I am not sure what is your point.  Are you against or in favor of Alan's
proposed resolution? or are you suggesting a new wording?

-ed


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> On the issue of decertification, I find it problematic that whilst ICANN
> staff through global partnerships does the due diligence for accreditation
> purposes, there is no similar or equal process done by them.
>
> I note that ISOC has a problem with ISOC Pakistan and my view is that this
> is a political impasse between ISOC and ISOC Pakistan, that they should
> resolve between themselves. By extension, this also means that the use of
> the ISOC logo and related memorabilia etc. When ISOC Pakistan was
> accredited in the first instance, it was accepted as an ALS within Pakistan
> and At Large. It follows that the agreement or relationship is not with
> ISOC but with the ALS on the ground.
>
> Whilst there seems to be some strained relations between ISOC Pakistan and
> ISOC, I have also noted that discussions have all been with ISOC officers
> and those with affiliations to ISOC. A principle of fairness and equity
> would demand that a due diligence investigation should be carried out by an
> independent officer without any ISOC leanings to collect information on the
> ground about the justified delisting of an entity. I have held prior roles
> in regulating the capital or securities markets and know that even with
> delisting entities from the stock exchange etc, there are stringent tests.
> (not saying that the tests should be the same but that we can look at
> principles of what's fair etc).
>
> If the ALAC deems that the ALS does not have a website me or that it has
> not been responding to mails. From current efforts within the Capacity
> Building Working Group, I can tell you that not all ALSes have websites and
> neither do all the contacts given to ICANN during the Accreditation
> process. Therein lies the danger of decertification because just because
> the original address given to At Large does not work. (There could be many
> explanations)
>
> On another note, there is a very real danger in delisting upon the advice
> of ISOC on one of their chapters because they do not conform to the ISOC
> mission. Whilst ISOC does have the right to delist from their roll, I am
> very uncomfortable with them interfering with an ALS on the ground.
>
> On the issue of the use of the name ISOC Pakistan, I do not think that it
> is a matter that should concern us as the ALAC as this is a private impasse
> between ISOC and ISOC Pakistan. On a similar note, recently when cleaning
> up our spreadsheet of ALSes, we were informed when we checked with some of
> our members of the change of names of some of the ALSes as this is a
> possibility and likelihood as far as evolution of Organisations go. People
> change and names change, sometimes.
>
> In this instance, in the event, I am mindful that there are always two
> sides to every story and it is always wise to have all the facts before
> making a decision.
>
> Thoughts from the far seas.
>
> Sala
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 29, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
> > On 28 May 2013 15:10, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Yaovi. I agree that adding the line about
> >> ISOC makes the disappearance clearer, but I think
> >> it also adds something that could get us into trouble.
> >>
> >
> > I disagree, and support Yaovi's amendment.
> >
> > Indicating that we have checked with "the" Internet Society and they have
> > indicated that the Pakistan Chapter no longer exists, simply indicates an
> > extra level of due diligence was undertaken to ensure that all reasonable
> > steps have been made to establish viability and/or contact.
> >
> > I would also note that the use of the term "Pakistan _*Chapter*_"
> strongly
> > indicates that this was a subordinate body of a larger one (not the case
> in
> > China) and that we have made a good-faith attempt to verify our
> information
> > with the only body known by the name "internet society" to have multiple
> > international chapters.
> >
> > The motions simply detail our good-faith attempt to make all reasonable
> > efforts to establish contact before taking this extreme measure. These
> > details do not obligate us to take the same exact measures for any future
> > circumstance of this nature; the "without prejudice" sentence in both
> > motions makes that intent quite explicit IMO.
> >
> > - Evan
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>



-- 
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.



More information about the ALAC mailing list