ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

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

RE: [alac] [Fwd: Re: [governance] RALOs without halos]

  • To: "'ALAC'" <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [alac] [Fwd: Re: [governance] RALOs without halos]
  • From: "Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:05:20 -0300

I think Vittorio is right, Anette.

You raised valid points about the need of having more structures form
different european countries. We are in a similar situation on LAC (maybe
worst). However, there is a need of deploying the regional structures, or at
least start thinking in their structure. The missing structures could join
later on, the RALO will be open to everyone, I assume. Moreover, I am sure
that "if you build it, they will come". Once you deploy the RALO, we can
expect more groups to be interested in participate.

Besides, right now this is the only way in wich ICANN ByLaws permit single
user participation in the process. We need to integrate those guys who don´t
want to participate in any specific structure, but have an impressive record
participating in Policy discussions (whether I like their ways and ideas or
not is another story).

I also think that many of your interesting ideas could be discussed during
the formation process.

Best !


-----Mensaje original-----
De: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Vittorio
Enviado el: Miércoles, 25 de Enero de 2006 10:45 a.m.
Para: Annette Muehlberg
Asunto: Re: [alac] [Fwd: Re: [governance] RALOs without halos]

Il giorno mar, 24/01/2006 alle 18.40 +0100, Annette Muehlberg ha
> All,
> after all these years of not building up RALOs, and still not having a 
> concept on how end-users interests could be served best by ALAC, I am 
> surprised by the public proposal of an EU-RALO structure with a *time
> limit* for discussion to the *15th of February!*
> As new EU-ALAC member, I do not understand why my EU-fellow ALACs 
> chose a way which does not even give us the time to contact other 
> organisations and individuals who are not on ALAC- or IG-mailing-lists 
> and discuss this proposal.

In my opinion, you misunderstood the point of the exercise, which is not to
involve new people in the discussion, but to conclude the interim process
and agree on the EURALO structure among those who already applied to

Potential ALSes had over two years to sign up to the process, and everyone
knew since 2003 that those who had signed up in the interim phase would have
been those who set up the RALO; we have done extensive efforts to do
outreach and encourage participation. So I don't see why we should wait for
more and more time for people who never showed up in two years - in fact
we've already been waiting too much.

Building a RALO in their Region is the first and foremost mandate given to
members of this Committee. I feel this as a responsibility and I do not want
to postpone it any more - in fact, the legitimacy of the interim ALAC
members is getting weaker and weaker as time goes by.

Incidentally, we initially drafted the document in October (copying you on
all messages) and we were ready to start the consultation at that time, but
we realized that you were unavailable (not your fault) and so we decided to
defer it until we could have you back online. After Vancouver, on December
12 I sent you again the draft asking for comments, and I even told you that
we were to use a web forum provided by ISOC Belgium. I then waited for over
one more month before starting the consultation. There's nothing bad in your
comments and there's still plenty of time to discuss them, but it would have
been nice to get them before.

My last, important point is:

> III.
> It is good that it is planned to finish the exclusion of individuals 
> and to have both: organizational as well as individual members.

While it is true that the Board in Ghana tried to scrap direct individual
participation forever, there was never an "exclusion of individuals" in the
RALO mechanism - actually, while the RALO structure is based on
organizations, we fought to keep the possibility for the RALOs to allow
direct individual participation, and to ensure that the ICANN Bylaws were
drafted to this effect. Unless the ICANN Bylaws are changed, individuals
will continue to be unable to participate directly as long as there is no
RALO set up in their Region - or if the RALO chooses not to have individual

Thus, setting up the EURALO asap is the only practical way to reinstate
direct participation by individual European users in the foreseeable future.
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/239 - Release Date: 24/01/2006

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/239 - Release Date: 24/01/2006

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy