[NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure

[Evan Leibovitch]

And the NARALO OP itself makes reference to IETF consensus procedures,
notably referencing RFC 2418 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt> (check
sections 3.3 and 3.4)

- Evan





On 24 August 2011 15:35, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1 at gov.nu.ca> wrote:

>  For the consideration of the term “consensus”, I would suggest we go with
> the terms of our Operating Procedures which define what that means in the
> NARALO context:
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/2264679/NA-2007-1-1rev1+NARALO+Operating+Principles.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1286813556000
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> D****
>
> ** **
>
> Darlene A. Thompson****
>
> Community Access Program Administrator****
>
> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP****
>
> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910****
>
> Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0****
>
> Phone:  (867) 975-5631****
>
> Fax:  (867) 975-5610****
>
> E-mail:  dthompson at gov.nu.ca****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* evanleibovitch at gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Evan Leibovitch
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:20 PM
> *To:* ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
> *Cc:* Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure****
>
> ** **
>
> A few comments****
>
>  ****
>
> > Once consensus is achieved,
>
> What kind of consensus? Are there no issues for which voting is
> appropriate?
> Who is a consensus-capable contributor?****
>
>  ** **
>
> I can think of no issue -- outside of elections -- for which voting is
> preferable to consensus in the NARALO/ICANN context.****
>
> ** **
>
> Consensus has worked to ensure that, whenever possible, minority views are
> accommodated rather than just rolled over by majority vote. The ability to
> use consensus for so much indicates a level of professionalism and maturity
> that indicates willingness to compromise and work together in a way that I
> consider preferable to confrontational votes in almost every circumstances.
> Contrast our workings to, for instance, LACRALO, where even small details
> can be subject to meticulous and hotly contested votes.****
>
> ** **
>
> I can't speak for Beau, but IMO (and when I was chair) *every* contributor
> is "consensus capable". The process rewards participation and awareness.
> This process was even surprisingly resilient to attempts at trolling and
> gaming. It is an organically-developed process of which our region should
> rightfully be proud.****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> > the Chair requests that the ALAC discuss the matter.
>
> For those NARALO originating issues which concern one or more other RALOs,
> in principal, though the coordination could be direct, and therefore not
> involve any non-elected person, and also not depend upon a process model
> that may frustrate the purpose of RALO-to-RALO communications.****
>
>  ** **
>
> The Chair (or any other member of NARALO for that matter) is able to raise
> an issue in the At-Large mailing lists. There are no restrictions as to who
> may raise an issue -- an ALS rep or individual member who may be frustrated
> by regional leadership's unwillingness/inability to escalate an issue is
> *always* welcomed to take it direct.****
>
> ** **
>
> Freedom to speak does not guarantee you'll get listened to, and regional
> support is of course an asset, but the forum is open and any ICANN-relevant
> issue is fair game.****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> For those NARALO originating issues which do not concern one or more other
> RALOs, reference to ALAC is optional, not manditory.
>
> > Discussions and spearheading of the matter at the ALAC level should be
> > promoted by the region's duly elected ALAC representatives.
>
> Agree. With the proviso that the elected representatives may be instructed
> where the elected representatives do not support the NARALO issue in
> question, or alternatively, that we come up with a proxy exception to the
> process so that its general purpose in electing its representatives does
> not prevent its specific purpose in refering a NARALO originating issue to
> a body to which it elects representatives.****
>
>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> In my experience, the issue is rarely that the elected ALAC reps are
> *against* the NARALO position -- indeed, one would suppose that they're part
> of the consensus behind the position. The problem as I see it -- that was
> the case in the matter that caused this issue to be raised -- is that the
> elected reps may lack the expertise and/or passion to give the issue the
> advocacy it deserves.****
>
> ** **
>
> Years before I became an ALAC member I routinely attended ALAC meetings in
> a non-voting capacity, to advance issues I believed important. I worked to
> get them on the core agenda (rather than tacked on at the end as Any Other
> Business) by asking the ALAC Chair directly. I would be invited to the part
> of the meeting discussing the issue, advance the point and answer questions,
> then leave the call after the issue had been acted upon. This can be done by
> ANY NARALO member, not just the Chair -- though, again, having regional
> support certainly helps advance the cause.****
>
> ** **
>
> Am I trying to deflect responsibility in my role as elected ALAC rep? I can
> only offer in my defence that I am already overwhelmed with region-neutral
> issues such as applicant support and broader issues related to the gTLD
> program and ICANN Future Challenges. I have a limited amount of cycles and
> am more than happy to work with advocates of NARALO issues to help them
> advance these issues ALAC-wide. But I can't always do it myself.****
>
> ** **
>
> The people who advance an issue through NARALO consensus should also be
> ready to themselves help advance the issue globally. It is not shirking
> responsibility to state accurately that someone with passion and expertise
> on pre-registration (for instance), who has driven the issue at NARALO, can
> make the case for action at ALAC far better than Gareth or I can. There were
> also some communications issues, as Gareth thought -- and I can fully
> understand how -- that the issue had not received closure at NARALO.****
>
> ** **
>
> Olivier mis-characterized the weariness of Gareth and me at the end of the
> last ALAC meeting as "lack of support" (and said so in a followup). Support
> take many forms, and sometimes that support means working with others rather
> than "going it alone" on issues on which I claim little expertise. Much work
> needs to be and there are very few people carrying the load.****
>
> ** **
>
> - Evan ****
>
> ** **
>