[NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review

[Dominik Filipp]

Wendy,

> I understand that's not what ICANN chose,
> but it still seems flawed to ignore that
> baseline.

Not ICANN but BoD chose. BoD is not ICANN.

Dominik
 

-----Original Message-----
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy
Seltzer
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 12:18 PM
To: Evan Leibovitch
Cc: NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I would be inclined to cut the attack on the reviewers' selection and
focus on substantive disagreements and their failure to include all the
options presented to them.

I know I recommended reverting to general at-large elections for board
members, scrapping the intermediary of the ALS-RALO-ALAC structure, and
I'm disturbed that they didn't even mention that among the alternatives.
I would really have liked to see a thoughtful comparison to justify the
heavyweight structures that require intensive participation, over
lightweight voting and delegation to empowered representatives, but see
none.

My chief concern with the ALAC has always been that it provides no
reason fo rhte ordinary Internet user to get involved, despite the range
of places where ICANN's mandate affects the Internet user.  I don't
think users should have to be intensively involved in issues of
peripheral importance, but that shouldn't deprive them of a way to voice
hteir opinions.  Votes have always seemed to me like the natural way to
bridge collective action problems, to express shallow but widely shared
opinion.  I understand that's not what ICANN chose, but it still seems
flawed to ignore that baseline.

- --Wendy

Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in 
> my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by 
> consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach
consensus.
> 
> Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other 
> comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to 
> have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night.
> 
> If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like 
> the tone, etc. please suggest changes.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure 
> possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review 
> by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community.
> 
> The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of 
> review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the 
> independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be 
> warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of 
> At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. While the report 
> indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to.
> 
> The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership

> on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible 
> interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and
responsible governance.
> 
> Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs

> of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards 
> by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently 
> exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of 
> the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction 
> of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak.
> 
> Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny 
> the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence 
> of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct 
> community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that 
> ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional.
> 
> What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, 
> but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have

> neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation.
> 
> For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN 
> community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review,

> as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were 
> constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the 
> betterment of ICANN's public constituency.
> 
> This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20,
> 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and 
> individual members.
> 
> 
> 
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis
> ts.icann.org
> 
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
> 
> 


- --
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow,
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD4DBQFIXNVauuui10VsrVERAnnQAJdlY3GOxNSNu7uBorGAAQxJwd7tAJ9ItagS
SnRyw5lqf7A80bNeNj6DFQ==
=1ErH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists
.icann.org

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
------