[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy

Mon Apr 14 13:12:59 EDT 2008

Well Danny
I'm unaware of any RALOs that have been in existence more than 6 years. The 
oldest has been in existence for 18 months or so, and has not been able to 
participate meaningfully yet as LAC isn't English speaking, and the 
information given to us is almost all in English, so pretty much there's 
little that can happen there.  NARALO is more active, as it doesn't have the 
language barrier, and doesn't have to wait for documents to be translated, 
like LACRALO, & AFRI-RALO.
 If you check the ALS listing, most haven't been involved for more than 2 
years either. So, we obviously aren't the people to whom you are directing 
this.

I also venture  that people who write blogs on ICANN  subjects are not 
broadly representative of the General Public. So reading those blogs 
probably won't fulfill the mandate to get the public involved.

How long have the working groups been formed? Has any information been 
posted in Spanish or Portuguese so that LAC volunteers can join in? 
Personally, I'd be loathe to join a working group that is discussing a 
series of technical documents in a language that I can't read! What would be 
the point of that? Probably would be a giant waste of time for all involved.
So, if the documents are translated in time for me to read them and the 
system is set up so that I can respond in my own language and have my 
opinions taken into consideration, it would be far more likely that I would 
join a WG.  OF course, the WG would also have to be on a topic that was 
affecting me or people I knew in my region. Or maybe even something I might 
be interested in from a pure intellectual curiosity standpoint. But it would 
have to gain my interest somehow before I'd join.

I think you are definitely confusing the NCUC academic research people with 
the general public. Academics whose work is in the field of Internet 
Governance are far more likely to do research in the area, duh. Consumer 
organizations are also  likely to do so, and there's a lot of outreach in 
the at Large towards those. The taxi driver who has a facebook page, or my 
aunt with her yahoo email are less likely to participate in meaningful 
research, except as directed by others.

Jacqueline
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:39 PM
To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson at GOV.NU.CA>; "Jacqueline A. Morris" 
<jam at jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org>; "Nick 
Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart at icann.org>
Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework 
andConflicts of Interest Policy

> If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they
> could easily be reading the relevant news articles and
> blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they
> certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of
> thousands of dollars to bring organizational
> representatives into their midst on a periodic basis
> just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot
> less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the
> necessary surveys and polls.
>
> But opinion alone is not what ICANN is after.
>
> They want real solutions to real problems... that
> means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to
> engage in research, to declare their findings based
> upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations
> based upon the findings.
>
> As this hasn't been happening and as there is no
> likelihood that this will ever happen (just look at
> all the empty Working Groups), the ALAC has no
> continuing purpose.
>
> Organizations with no continuing purpose (like the
> former Protocol Supporting Organization) that drain
> ICANN's financial resources should most certainly be
> discontinued.
>
> Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement
> could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does
> happen, where findings are noted, and where policy
> recommendations do emerge.
>
> It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed
> experiment.  The PSO was discontinued after two years,
> the GNSO General Assembly was discontinued as a
> representative unit after four years -- you've had
> more than ample time to prove the worth of the
> ALAC/RALO model, and the model has failed to get the
> job done.
>
> I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this
> rathole.
>
>
> --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson at GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
>
>> Danny,
>>
>> Actually, I would have to agree with your statement,
>> "The truth of the
>> matter is that most ALSs have only a passing
>> interest on an occasional
>> topic; they have no deep commitment to defend those
>> that they
>> purportedly represent."  This goes right to the
>> heart of what Jacqueline
>> was saying.  ALSs are not registrants.  ICANN wants
>> public opinion on
>> stuff that the public, over all, has only a passing
>> interest in.
>>
>> So, how do we get more public interest in this (and
>> I DON'T mean
>> registrant interest - I mean John Q Public)?  What
>> are your suggestions
>> on how to improve things, rather than just pointing
>> out where everybody
>> else is failing?
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:30 AM
>> To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan
>> Leibovitch; Nick
>> Ashton-Hart
>> Cc: NA Discuss
>> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft
>> Accountability Framework
>> andConflicts of Interest Policy
>>
>> Darlene,
>>
>> The Summit Questionnaire was just finalized and the
>> 15
>> areas of interest cited all relate to information
>> that
>> can readily be found through ICANN's homepage.
>>
>> Sufficient information is out there already for
>> those
>> that care about DNS issues.
>>
>> The answer is not to be found in creating a DNS for
>> Dummies series in which 2 brief pages cover each
>> issue
>> -- if that approach is taken then all you will wind
>> up
>> with is something as useless as the "Guide to the
>> DNS
>> for End Users" that was prepared by an ICANN
>> consultant.
>>
>> Show me one relevant area that an ALS cares about
>> for
>> which sufficient information is lacking.
>>
>> Information is out there for those that wish to seek
>> it out.  You seek to explain ALS non-performance,
>> non-involvement, and non-engagement on the basis of
>> a
>> lack of educational materials.  I don't buy the
>> argument.
>>
>> The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only
>> a
>> passing interest on an occasional topic; they have
>> no
>> deep commitment to defend those that they
>> purportedly
>> represent.
>>
>> Consider the IPC that aggressively acts to protect
>> the
>> interests of the intellectual property crowd.  By
>> contrast, the bulk of the ALSs have no interest in
>> protecting us -- and that is not something that a
>> Reader's Digest condensed version of an issue will
>> cure.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson at GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, OF COURSE the registrant community (in the
>> US,
>> > anyways) responded
>> > to the RegisterFly debacle - it hurt their
>> interests
>> > personally.  If
>> > something affects me personally, I read up on it
>> and
>> > respond, as well.
>> > If it doesn't I might not.
>> >
>> > ALSs are generally non-profit organizations run by
>> > people putting in
>> > hugely long numbers of hours dealing with their
>> > work.  They don't sit
>> > behind a desk and have huge amounts of time to go
>> > finding stuff and
>> > working on stuff that doesn't affect them (or
>> their
>> > jobs) directly.  You
>> > must have tons more time at work to read this
>> stuff
>> > than the entire ALS
>> > community put together.  We all have jobs that
>> > actually take up huge
>> > portions of our time/life.
>> >
>> > When the Canadian ALSs signed up, we were told
>> that
>> > easier to digest
>> > information would be soon coming out.  As Nick has
>> > reported there have
>> > been various impediments to this but that it
>> should
>> > "soon" be coming.
>> > Once this is available, then I would suggest that
>> > the NARALO do, maybe,
>> > a weekly informational e-mailing on one subject to
>> > all ALSs - both for
>> > their info and for their web sites.
>> >
>> > In stating, "The problem isn't that ALSs aren't
>> > being properly educated;
>> > the problem is that ALSs are not the at-large.
>> The
>> > real At-Large cares,
>> > reacts and responds; they don't."  That is really
>> > wrong.  The At-Large
>> > does care - about those issues that affect them.
>> > Comparing them to a
>> > registrant that has just had the plug pulled on
>> > their web site is
>> > completely misleading.
>> >
>> > So, what issues do ALSs care about?  WELL - that's
>> > the information we
>> > need to get out to them.  What is happening that
>> > they should care about?
>> > What response is needed?  Put out information such
>> > as that, and we will
>> > get more input.
>> >
>> > Constant negativity sure won't help, though.
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Danny Younger
>> [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:32 AM
>> > To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan
>> > Leibovitch; Nick
>> > Ashton-Hart
>> > Cc: NA Discuss
>> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft
>> > Accountability Framework
>> > andConflicts of Interest Policy
>> >
>> > Re:  "How can we punish or even expect anything at
>> > all
>> > out of ALSs that haven't been educated?"
>> >
>> > When these organizations signed up they agreed to
>> > (1) distribute information on ICANN activities and
>> > issues,
>> > (2) enable discussions among their members on the
>> > issues; and
>> > (3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy
>> > development, discussions and decisions.
>> >
>> > The ICANN website currently contains information
>> on:
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> 