ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [Summit-participants] constructive critical contribution to ALAC

  • To: nirmol81@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [Summit-participants] constructive critical contribution to ALAC
  • From: Dharma Dailey <dharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:58:55 -0600

I view the discussion below as two distinct but related issues. One is the big picture about the relationship of ALSs, and RALOs, and ALAC. The other is the details of how we communicate, educate and get work done. While some may like the current big picture structure better than others do, I think we can all agree that the details could use improvement! Is there an opportunity to flesh out some of Max's suggestions while we are here?


On Mar 1, 2009, at 5:16 PM, nirmol agarwal wrote:

Dear Izumi,

Thankyou for the kind response. I wish the ALAC review committee would take my suggestion into account, if not respond.


Nirmol K Agarwal

"Life is beautiful, but conditions apply. Please read the offer document carefully before investment."

--- On Sun, 3/1/09, Izumi AIZU <iza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Izumi AIZU <iza@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Summit-participants] constructive critical contribution to ALAC To: alac-review@xxxxxxxxx, summit-participants@atlarge- lists.icann.org, at-large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: nirmol81@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 6:58 PM

Dear Niromol and all,

I support most of what you said in the meeting and wrote below. I am quite concerned that the RALO structure becomes too much constraint, rather than a conduit, for ALSs to provide their voices and, in return get the feed backs, thus becoming real
resources of At Large.

Not all issues related to AtLarge at ICANN are of regional nature - I mean RALO
may not always be the efficient mechanism to channel the
voices of the global users. I mean, an ALS in Tokyo may not agree with another in Munbai, but with Cape Town, perhaps, but they do not necessarily make up the single AP-RALO view. And that is OK, I guess, on the introduction of
new gTLDs, perhaps.

RALO may be a good channel to out-reach the new ones into the playground, but it could also become its own subject, then it is not really efficient.

I was one of the three members of small committee with Ester Dyson and
Denice MIischel who wrote the first draft of ALS-RALO-ALS, so I feel
part guilty and responsible for this ;-).


2009/3/2, nirmol agarwal <nirmol81@xxxxxxxxx>:

Dear ALAC review team / Dear member ALS'

As an out come of the discussion today morning (i.e 1 March 2009) in the ALAC review WG meeting, I would like to highlight that while considering the structural and participation from ALS it is important that the Working group also take into consideration that the present structure is more a one way vertical communication, where suggestion made by the ALS appears to go in a black hole. It may be considered that in order to encourage greater level of participation in advisory activities there need to be some sort of response to the ALS on their comments, making the structure dynamic rather than one way.

Second, it is also advisable, in view of the requirement of arriving at greater consensus, there needs to have greater horizontal interaction between ALS all across the globe irrespective of which RALO the ALS belongs. For which the fire wall created between various RALO should be done away with as far as the ALS’s are concerned. I understand that this firewall offers administrative convenience, but the same should not allow to sabotage the greater ALAC goal.

Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that the multiplicity of groups such as GNSO, ccNSO, RALO are complicating the participation. It needs to be clarified that if on an issue, say gTLD, if any RALO/ALS have made any recommendation what would be the importance of such recommendation when there exits an exclusive group taking care of the issue such as GNSO.



Nirmol K Agarwal

"Life is beautiful, but conditions apply. Please read the offer document carefully before investment."

--- On Sun, 3/1/09, Max Senges <maxsenges@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Max Senges <maxsenges@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Summit-participants] constructive critical contribution to ALAC
To: alac-review@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: summit-participants@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 
Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 4:58 PM

Dear ALAC review team - dear ALAC colleagues

Allow me to briefly restate the comments I made during the session on ALAC review this morning and encourage you to also contribute constructively to planning the future setup of ALAC @ http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#alac-review

1) information overload
As a volunteer it is very difficult to follow all the complexities of ICANN developments. It would be great if the core ALAC team can summarize and give short updates on hot themes and especially calls for defined action (like votes etc.). Another worthwhile effort might be a 5 min video newbie-guide on what are the common practices and points of leverage for ALAC member organizations.

2) education about ALAC & Internet Governance
I support the idea to develop educational resources (e.g. for teaching Internet Governance and ICANN matters in school and university) as well as to hold online lectures. Hereby learning materials and activities should be addressed to ALAC members as well as the general public/users. I am happy to help in developing this initiative as this is my field of work and i have concrete ideas in how to bring this forward.

3) Facilitate organization - enable bootstrapping - POWER - funded initiatives I would like to reinterprete Karl Auberback's point raising that in the end ICANN is at least not only a technical but also a policial institution in which the name of the game is power. I'd like to add power is represented by governmental diplomacy AND of course by money. Hence as Karl also pointed out it is good and important to give advise - but as he rightly said everybody can give advise and we as user representatives should continue to influence ICANN's governance structure to give civil society/ user representitives advise relevance.

Nevertheless my constructive critical constribution to the review is to improve the support (bootstrapping) for initiatives coming from ALAC member organizations. One aspect that i'd like to single out is for ALAC staff to facilitate to find funding for initiatives because there is only so much one can do voluntarily.

In this context allow me to mention that an innitiative is forming to work on a User/Registrant Rights Charter which eventually will lead to better user/consumer rights for all by integrating the charter into all Registrars offerings. You are very much invited to join our team - please contact me and/or come to our workshop on Tuesday, 3 March, 2009 16:30 - 18:00 Room: Alameda 3 (Hotel Meliá) http://mex.icann.org/node/2651

4) My last point is asking to explore how to make another ALAC summit like the one in mexico possible. These face-to-face meetings are very very essential to build the relationships and trust to start meaningfull work.

Kind regards,


Dr. Max Senges



Summit-participants mailing list

Summit-participants mailing list

                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
Summit-participants mailing list

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy