[NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review

[Dominik Filipp]

> that being that a negative response by At-large
> to the review could endanger the summit being ok'd

Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be punished?
If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted.

> a politically saavy person would not outright
> reject the summit proposal

Sure, politically savvy person should take care about his/her political
career in the first place, and as such it may happen that sometimes
regardless of the actual needs of the community he/she advocates. That
is the political reality that is ICANN.

No offense, Robert. Just thinking aloud.

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Guerra
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 12:15 AM
To: NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review

Evan:

a couple of quick comments :

- I would focus comments just on the report, and be softer on the
language related to the selection of the consultant.
-  agree with evan's comments - though there is a larger - political
issue worth considering. that being that a negative response by At-large
to the review could endanger the summit being ok'd
-  a politically saavy person would not ouright reject the summit
proposal - but, instead place poisoned recommendations in the alac
review. the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff
and board to rethink support for the summit at this time. After all -
our input - politics and games - should be expected. That is the
political reality that is ICANN.  the at-large community needs to think
strategically and have a - strong voice to react to the draft.
otherwise, it could be used to divide us.

- Should we have strong reaction to the report (and i'm supportive of
that), it would be preferable if we could get other at-large regions to
support us. That way, it wouldn't be jsut NA - but broader.

- specifics : we should also include specific changes, that we'd like to
see.

that's all for now. let's continue this discussion face to face - and
virtually - as much of NA ralo can't make to paris.

Robert


On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
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
> ------
>

------
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
------