[NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure

Beau Brendler beaubrendler at earthlink.net
Wed Aug 24 21:21:41 UTC 2011


I did not intend to misquote or offend or take cheap shots at anybody. I apologize for such offense given. But I do think we have brought out an important issue here, and I think we need a relatively simplified and transparent way of elevating policy suggestions that emerge at the grassroots level, to move quickly up the ladder to the ALAC. Especially when one of our most experienced members, Eric B-W, states a public opinion that "pre-registration" amounts to a form of consumer fraud. "Consumer fraud" for us as a public interest endeavor should be ringing bells loud, and it's a low-hanging fruit for those higher up in the political chain to grab onto and amplify. I don't intend to take anything away from the importance of the JAS working group and other policy endeavors, but if we can't make a cohesive effort to inform the public of a potential fraud when it happens (and remember, we began discussing this issue prior to Singapore), then process is getting in the way of policy. It should not take that much effort to whip such a thing into a bigpulse vote and get it to Scott Pinzon or whomever the appropriate channel is, to issue a press release.

And yes, I do take responsibility for not pushing harder on this in Singapore, but I just did not understand whether the movement on gTLD policy made the issue moot.

Maybe we should consider creating a slot at the regional level for policy development, and ask that person to help formulate statements. Eric B-W has done this well on short notice on a couple of occasions, perhaps it is a role we could consider for him. If not, the chairs can do it. The regional people, the grassroots, the ALSs, have got to see and believe that their policy concerns are being listened to and addressed or they will not bother to participate.

BB


-----Original Message-----
>From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>Sent: Aug 24, 2011 3:42 PM
>To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1 at gov.nu.ca>
>Cc: "na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure
>
>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 ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>------
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>------





More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list