[ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities

[Brendler, Beau]

Personally, I think option two is better overall for users. It also takes into account what's going on within the NCUC.

As for the legitimacy issue, I think that can be resolved with some screening and some written criteria.
________________________________________
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle [patrick at vande-walle.eu]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:59 AM
To: At-Large Worldwide
Subject: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN  entities

I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with
other  entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be
the only entity to represent individual internet users.

The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments
welcome.

----------------------

1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different
groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these
groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the
only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other
issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC
members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up.

2. There should be other groups representing users within the community.
The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold.
The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly
identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There
is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these
groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to
the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if
the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context.


On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical
issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the
policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account
that  the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work.


Relationship with other ICANN entities

10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and
concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes

11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of
the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN
entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice

12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be
strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and
within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

***
Scanned

**
This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.