[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Non-Geographic RALO

Wed Apr 11 15:09:13 EDT 2007

I didn't want to prolong this, but curiosity got the better of me... I
promise to let it go after this...

How did these rights get taken away? By whom? How did all these At Large
advocates, with direct representation on the Board, lose their franchise?
What did the directly elected Board members do to stop it? Is there an
objective analysis of the failure anywhere with lessons learnt so that  we
may not repeat the mistakes? Besides - if these rights were taken away so
long ago and you've been fighting for them to be returned for so long and
haven't had any success, maybe it's time to change tactics?

Jacqueline

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:06 PM
To: 'Danny Younger'; 'Wendy Seltzer'; alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO

The "global" elections way back when didn't include 1.3 million Trinidad and
Tobago people, and it didn't represent me. The LACRALO represents me. My
people's voices are raised in it, and listened to in it. I think that the
more representative of the global population ALAC gets, with more and more
people having a say via their regions, the more likely the At-Large is to
have more say on the global IG stage (not just ICANN). 

I have a different view to yours because I believe that there are many
people who would remain disenfranchised by such an approach. How would the
telecentres and community groups in the rural areas of Trinidad and Tobago
and other developing nations be able to participate? Now, the RALO includes
ALSes that go out to those areas, talk to them and bring back their
concerns, issues and views. ICANN's RALO structure has reached out to us, in
a way that nothing else ever did, except the WSIS.

So, yes, I am willing to work with this structure, and I will continue to
focus on getting full global participation in the IG structures, including
ICANN. I can see us having influence via this mechanism. I  haven't seen ANY
suggestion coming from you that focuses on allowing the other millions and
millions and millions of Internet users who do not live in the developed
world to participate on any sort of equal basis with the Internet elite who
have been involved since the year dot. Talking about second-class status -
we didn't have any status under the previous systems. Second class is a step
up, and the next step will take us to first class. The review is an
opportunity, not something that requires us to sit passively by and allow
others to determine our path. It's an opportunity for the At Large to look
at the years past, and the future -  to decide where we want to go, who we
want to represent and in what way.

Sometimes it seems to me as if some people just want to roll back the clock
to the days when all of this was a small and closed club, with people who
all thought alike. Well, it isn't that anymore. It's  diverse, (and
hopefully rapidly getting more and more diverse) and we have different
cultures and different views and different ways of doing things. And we will
think differently. And all of those different views require respect. I try
to understand and work with cultures that are different to mine. I may not
always succeed, but I try. I don't see that consideration and respect coming
from all of us in the At Large as yet. I hope it comes soon, otherwise we
will definitely have problems moving ahead to what seems to be a similar
final goal.

And that would be a great pity.

Jacqueline
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:47 PM
To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; 'Wendy Seltzer'; alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: RE: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO

Hi Jacqueline,

I can remember when we had elected at-large directors.
 I am one of those that remains willing to fight for
what is right -- the return of the representation that
has been denied to us.

The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of
the rights that have been taken away from our
community and are willing to go along with anything
that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN
insiders.  It's not their fault; they simply don't
know the history, and being good-spirited they want to
help out in any way that they can.

Part of our job is to educate them about their
second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of
voting rights, about their lack of control over a
budget, about their lack of representation, about the
degree to which their input has been ignored over and
over again.

You are a Chair of a body that purportedly has the
best interest of the At-Large at heart, yet you
doggedly refuse to stand up and fight for the
representation that has been taken away from our
community.  You should be ashamed.  

One shouldn't cower in a corner and let others (like a
Review Committee) point out the proper path for your
community.  This is about self-empowerment and
deciding for yourself which is the best way forward.

There was a time when ccTLD managers were part of the
DNSO.  They left that organization to start their own
Supporting Organization.  They had the guts to do what
was best for them.  

This conversation is all about asking the important
questions, such as:  why should we accept a structure
(ALAC/RALO) that institutionalizes a permanent
disenfranchisement of our rights?

Without your right to board-level representation you
have nothing in the realpolitik world of ICANN.  

--- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>
wrote:

> Danny
> You could consider that the RALO structure may be
> adjusted to allow the At
> Large to nominate representatives to the Board -
> this was mentioned in the
> Lisbon meeting as a possibility. It might be a
> recommendation from the
> External review- who knows?
> 
> Yet again, LAC (I know as I am a member) and quite a
> few of the other
> regions (from conversations with them) see value in
> the RALOs. Did  you
> spend some time talking to other regions, and even
> some members in your own
> NA region to get their feedback as to what they find
> interesting and useful
> about the RALOS rather than insist that all of us
> are wrong and foolish and
> your way is the ONLY correct way?
> I saw a message from Darlene on the list that seemed
> to imply that her
> organization found the RALO useful. Have you spoken
> to people of like mind
> to see why?
> 
> If you don't find it useful, and you prefer other
> pathways to participate in
> ICANN processes, that's fine. But if others want to
> work within this
> structure, let them go ahead. Not everyone in the
> world thinks like you do,
> and the rest of us have as much right to choose  our
> pathway to
> participation. You've mentioned writing directly to
> the ICANN Board, or
> joining the NonCommercial Users Constituency, or by
> signing up to the
> General Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning
> as observers on GNSO
> Task Forces, or by sending in comments to the public
> forums. So that's a lot
> of different ways for participation. Add the RALOs
> as one more, one that
> many people are finding useful.
> 
> Jacqueline
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:27 AM
> To: Wendy Seltzer; alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: [At-Large] Non-Geographic RALO
> 
> There has been some discussion about the possibility
> of creating a non-geographic RALO -- see
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q2
> /000588.html
> 
> With the ALAC Review soon to commence, I find it
> necessary to ask the question:  "In the last four
> and
> a half years has any regionally-specific issue
> emerged
> that would actually justify the creation of the
> Regional At-Large organizations (RALOs)?"  
> 
> I haven't seen any such issue, have you?
> 
> Every other constituent body within ICANN's GNSO
> works
> on a global basis.  Not one is divided into regional
> subsets.  
> 
> I continue to have problems with the concept of
> following a bad model for the At-Large just because
> a
> bunch of ICANN insiders put it together and gave us
> no
> other options.  
> 
> An even worse idea is trying to finalize
> arrangements
> for a North American RALO at a time when many are
> questioning whether the ALAC itself has a continuing
> purpose.  
> 
> In my view, we should be pressing instead for the
> establishment of a Supporting Organization for the
> At-Large community that seats its members onto the
> ICANN Board.  This was a plan originally proposed by
> ICANN's own Blue-Ribbon ALSC panel that found an
> ICANN-wide consensus for the establishment of an
> At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO).
> 
> Anything less than this distracts from the goal of
> achieving representation.  All of us have a large
> number of ways by which we may "participate" already
> such as having our organizations write directly to
> the
> ICANN Board, or having our organizations join the
> Non
> Commercial Users Constituency, or by signing up to
> the
> Gneneral Assembly Discussion list, or by functioning
> as observers on GNSO Task Forces, or by sending in
> comments to the public forums.  We really don't need
> a
> regional construct just to achieve participation.
> 
> Let's focus on what's right for us (a model that
> puts
> our representatives on the ICANN Board) rather than
> on
> models that continue to deny us the representation
> that is our right.
> 
> 
>        
>
____________________________________________________________________________
> ________
> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
> in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
>
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> www.alac.icann.org
> www.icannalac.org
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 -
> Release Date: 4/9/2007
> 10:59 PM
>  
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 -
> Release Date: 4/9/2007
> 10:59 PM
>  
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________________________
________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. 
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007
10:59 PM

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007
10:59 PM

_______________________________________________
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica
nn.org
---
Draft MoU with ICANN:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007
10:59 PM

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007
10:59 PM