Re: TOR Independent Review by ICANN

["Richard Padilla" <padilla.richard@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

In relevance to the expected amount of comments to the TOR via the
independent review of ALAC, and from what I have read it seem there is
sufficient quality for the TOR. But it should be noted that in accordance to
the structure of ICANN that ALAC is more than just a requirement in the
Internet governance or another sub-department that just exist in trying to
promote the governance of ICANN. I suppose in the complexity of the
structure of ICANN maybe a restructuring is required from the top to bottom
and thus shortening the number of sub-organizations that help makeup ICANN
can be looked at.

It should also be noted that there should be sufficient comments from all
that this affects to ensure that ALAC be kept due to the excellent work
being promoted by themselves across the regions it covers. In particular the
work being promoted and covered by members in the Latin America/Caribbean
region as an example. If their work is disrupted then it not only affect all
the other regions that require the same amount of commitment and dedication,
but it can also lead to a dismantling of the voices required to help govern
the issues being conceived by ICANN in discussions with all organizations
and governments alike in the development of Internet Governance.

Thus moving on to the physical TOR questions within each section, being a
new member to which my voice will hopefully help to add to the requirements
that is needed to show ALAC involvement in representation of individual
internet users. If the individual voice have no representation then how can
ICANN be considered a true representation of Internet users worldwide it
will become a structured voice of those with and those without or even no
voice from those that have nothing. There is a very important and required
to ensure that the help to close the digital divide that has been shrinking
and growing at about the same speed over the years is actually engaged. I do
feel that even though these questions in part 1 is a little demeaning they
are required, but if ALAC serve its purpose just by showing the level
engagement in the work being promoted by them then some of the ignorance
show within ICANN can be ignored as ALAC show its purpose.

Questions in part 2 are definitely questions that are more in line with what
should be looked at to ensure a properly defined TOR, that is required for
ICANN dependence, and independence to ensure that they themselves are
delivering what they set out to do as a sub-governance organization.
Questions in part 2 sub section Structure again I feel is just like in part
1 it sound a little demeaning as the individuals that represent the
individual internet users are surely there for representation of the
individual that cannot provide a voice in the understanding of what ICANN do
and how they do it. If ALAC is determined unwarranted by this review then
the question to ask is why there is ICANN as it will become something of a
joke in the terms of its position in the work it suppose to develop and
promote.

Questions in the remaining sub sections of part 2 are standard generic
questions that will be answered in clear manner as they have been asked. I
do suggest that if these actually become the final defining questions on the
TOR then hopefully ICANN will be judging clearly how these sub-organizations
which include ALAC are defined and operated without prejudice. Hopefully
this TOR once finalized will allow such organizations to better perform
their definition of their own objectives in terms of their own TOR. It
should also lead to a better define TOR of ALAC to operate with. My final
hope is that ALAC review leads to further development and inclusion of more
individuals that are all trying to improve the development, encouragement
and delivery of this technology to everyone whether they have it or have
not.

R. Padilla
B Sc. M Sc.