[EURO-Discuss] alac review

[Kleinwächter, Wolfgang]

Vittorio
 
More precisely, Westlake has been instructed to review the effectiveness of the current structure in reaching the purpose of the ALAC as described in the ICANN Bylaws: "to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users".

Wolfgang:
This is correct but it makes no or only little sense to review a mechanism which has started its work just 12 months ago

Vittorio:

The idea that the At Large has a role "in the broader context of Internet Governance", or that the purpose of the ALAC includes ensuring the accountability and democracy of ICANN, is entirely yours (Jeanette's, etc.), and while the accountability of ICANN to the general public is a fundamental issue which I too find very important, it is not
what is written in the ICANN Bylaws as the purpose of the ALAC. To a certain extent, it is you and Dominik who do not understand the role of At Large in the ICANN structure :-) 
 
Wolfgang:
This is nonsense Vittorio and you should know it better. The issue is very complex and is rooted in the foundation of ICANN (as an alternative to the IAHC). I recoemmend to go back to the report of the MAC (Membership Advisory Committee) from 1999, the report of the Bild Commission and the NAIS-Study / Markle Foundation from 2001. I agree that there ws also a controversial understanding about  the role of At Large from the very early beginning. Rremember the argument of the late Hans Krajenbrink . To be clear this was not a MIS-understanding because the two groups knew what they wanted. This was a different understanding and this continuos that there are two controversial posiions. But again I am surprised to hear such argumetns from you, Vittorio, who very often agve the impression that you have  another position(and earned trust for this frm the community). In WGIG yo havr argued in a different way.  Do you really believe you can seperate social and political  processes in different boxes and say this is IGF, this is ICANN and this is OECD? 
 
Probably there is a wide misunderstanding, misinformation and misinterpreation around an old question which is now presented as a reinvented (and misconfigured) wheel. Because there is such a high level of confusion I propose to have a special workshop in the next ICANN meeting in ALAC about "The Role of At Large and individual Internert Users in the Post-JPA-ICANN". I am volunteering to co-organize such a workshop.
 
Best
 
wolfgang     

As I said today in the meeting, the issue about the accountability of
ICANN pertains more to the discussions about the post-JPA status and
structure of ICANN. Perhaps the ALAC would do more good in making better
use of its representative on the President's Strategy Committee, and in
advocating for a broader and more open discussion in that process.
--
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------

_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>