[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits

Mon Apr 28 17:51:38 EDT 2008

Danny just a minor point on the relationship between ALS's and the ALAC...
ALS's coalesce into RALO's  (and here there is both opportunity and need for
input into ICANN Policy development at both these structural element/levels.
Further we are in absolute agreement that this needs radical improvement for
the At-Large Community to be properly engaged and involved ....   

However the ALAC is an "AC to the ICANN Board" that is constituted by
equitably balanced regional representation. Currently where 3 appointments
are made to represent each Region (AF; AP; EU; LAC & NA) that being two (2)
directly from the respective RALO's and one (1) by NomCom appointment...  

We do keep seeing the use of interchanging 'nomenclature' and descriptions
of 'purpose'  in these conversations, a confusion (to some) that I believe
is best avoided if at all possible.  

CLO

-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:55 AM
To: Brendler, Beau; Nick Ashton-Hart; At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits

Sorry to have to disagree, but if I were sitting on
the Board Governance Committee I'd be scoffing at the
ridiculous demands being made in this document as no
case has properly been made for ALS (user)
constituency status within the GNSO.

A few questions:

1.  The GNSO has made it possible for participation
within their committees, task forces, ad-hoc groups,
and volunteer drafting teams -- how many ALSs have
availed themselves of the opportunity?

2.  The GNSO is a policy formulating body that
discusses policy matters on-line -- how many ALSs have
participated in any online DNS-related policy
discussion?

3.  GNSO Constituencies are self-supporting and each
charges a fee for membership -- how many ALSs are
willing to pay a constituency membership fee?

4.  GNSO Councillors travel to ICANN sessions without
the benefit of ICANN travel support -- how many ALSs
will be willing to regularly send their members at
their own expense to GNSO functions?

5.  Can you name even one ALS that knows the status of
the ALAC letter sent to the Board regarding
front-running?

6.  Can you name even one ALS that knows the status of
GNSO discussions on fast-flux or inter-registrar
domain transfers or the GNSO's current position on
IDNC?

7.  Although the ALAC always has some sort of comment
to make on the topic of WHOIS (that lends itself to
armchair philosophers), how many ALSs actually
volunteered to participate in an effort to define the
next range of WHOIS studies?

You know, when we consider topics like fast-track for
IDNs, we factor in considerations such as demand and
capability -- when I look at the GNSO restructuring I
see no widespread demand for ALS involvement, nor do I
see a capability to engage in serious policy
formulation discussions.  

Just look at the regional lists -- has any ALS from
anywhere in the world other than North America
expressed an interest in an ALS constituency?  New
constituencies are supposed to be able to demonstrate
that they are:

1)  broadly representative; and
2)  that the addition of such a Constituency will
improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its
policy-development responsibilities.

Based on the track record of ALAC's ALSs, you couldn't
convince me that they will act to improve the ability
of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development
obligations... they haven't even managed to put
together a proper working group on any topic
whatsoever or for that matter discuss DNS policy on
their own discussion lists.

I will not support the current text as I believe it to
be detrimental to a GNSO that suffers enough already
from the presence of certain constituencies that only
rarely choose to participate.  We don't need more of
that.

--- "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe at consumer.org> wrote:

> I'm closer to supporting this than anything else
> I've seen yet.
> 
> Danny, Evan, what do you think (the document is a
> little difficult to read as it's very wide, I'm
> referring to Nick's revisions on the right).
> 
> BB
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf
> of Nick Ashton-Hart
> Sent: Sat 4/26/2008 11:24 AM
> To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss
> Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement
> Edits
>  
> Dear All:
> 
> I have been requested to provide some language which
> might act as a 'bridge' which could help to
> reconcile the views expressed about the Joint
> Proposal on GNSO Reform which has been the subject
> of considerable discussion in the NARALO in the last
> several days.
> 
> I hope that what I have crafted is at least close to
> what is required. As always, whether it is used or
> not is entirely up to all of you.
> 
> I have taken the liberty of doing the drafting using
> the wiki version of the ALAC Statement to the Board
> of ICANN on GNSO Improvements, since it seemed to me
> that this would make it easy for everyone to see the
> original text of that document and also the changes
> that I have introduced, Here are some URLs for you:
> 
> 1. Side-by-side view of the original ALAC draft and
> the drafting work just done:
>
https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=a
l_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statement_on_gnso_improvements&mode=source&new_rev
ision_id=20080426152144&old_revision_id=20080423215537&Button=Compare+Revisi
ons
> 
> 2. Original text of the ALAC Statement, unmodified:
>
https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=al_a
lac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statement_on_gnso_improvements;revision_id=2008042321
5537
> 
> 3. Joint Proposal of Users:
>
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/docTwl3R0M9fY.doc
> 
> NOTE: All three members of the At-Large staff are
> travelling either Sunday, or Monday, to the ICANN HQ
> in Marina Del Rey for a staff meeting of the Policy
> Unit. We are therefore unlikely to see emails sent
> to us on this subject until Sunday night. Please
> keep this in mind if you need to reach us.
> 
> --
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> Director for At-Large
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN)
> Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88
> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
> Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44
> Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68
> email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
> Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight:
> nashtonhart at mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart
> Online Bio:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> 
> ***
> Scanned
> 
> ------
> 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
> 
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
> 

____________________________________________________________________________
________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org