Thanks so much for your message.
After the ICANN reform conducted by Stuart Lynn, a lot of pleople thought
that the end user will not participate in ICANN anymore. And here are we. An
those ALSs who approach to be certified. I think it is important for all of
us to acknowledge that te main problem here is not the actual "lack of
power" but rather the "lack of knowledge". There are many organizations
around the world that don´t have a clue about how they could participate in
a weird self regulated institutional experiment like ICANN.
Your message includes a reference to ISOC. I think we all reckon the vital
role that ISOC plays in the evolvement of the internet. Even if we don´t, it
has been recognized everywere. As per ISOC own organization, it is not
important to have ALL chapters involved to start working. I disagree with
you when you stated that the France od UK chapters are more
important-relevant or bigger that those who are involved right know. As far
as I know - and I know this organization pretty good - the chapter form
Netherlands is pretty big. Societá Internet is very important also.
Let me make a general remark at this point: It is COMPLETELY NATURAL for
those who has a specific interest in whow the internet works, and how the
DNS is being managed, to get involved in an ISOC chapter. It was a very
succesful model in a certain period of time, and it "absorbed" most of the
people interested in our matters. We shouldn´t be affraid of having ISOC
Finnaly, I don´t think that "...start to discuss possible and effective
forms of participation, possible regional issues and structures, proposals
for how to deal with the problem of different languages etc. And then let us
start an "experiment" which is open to further changes...." is in our
current mandate. We were poised to build the RALOs in the shorter period of
time possible. If we don´t agree with this objective, then maybe the best
thing to do is to step down.
Just to wrap-up : the best thing we can do for the Internet user is , in my
humble POV, build the RALOs as we were prompt, and after, start advocating
for more power within ICANN. To do it before is clumsy and uneffective.
De: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Annette
Enviado el: Domingo, 29 de Enero de 2006 01:22 p.m.
Para: Bret Fausett; Vittorio Bertola; shahshah@xxxxxxxx; Sebastian Ricciardi
Asunto: Re: [alac] Selecting Our Successors
I am wondering why a structure which does not work for your region should
work for the European region. What is it, that makes this RALO structure
work better in Europe?
The fact, that out of eight or nine ALSes seven belong to the regional
chapters of one organisation? (And even those are not complete - the large
ones of UK, France and Germany are missing)
Starting a RALO with that group of members does not serve the function of
legitimizing At-Large work and makes outreach work even more complicated.
It is already hard to get Europeans involved in ICANN work, but not because
we do not have enough people active in serving internet endusers
interests/consumers rights. Actually, Europe has quite a lot of very
interesting consumer and user organisations as well as individuals working
in that field.
They were not attracted by the excisting structures to get involved because
they are impact oriented and not keen in bureaucracy. The RALO structure as
proposed now worsens that problem. Instead of showing how and on which
issues they can have an impact, the outlined EU-RALO will be a closed shop
for those who want to spend their time fighting for persons not for content.
Participation will be reduced to electing those who will finally elect the
relevant two persons.
I do not share your hope that "if you build it, they will come" - there is
some interrelation between *what you build* and them *being
attracted* to come.
And Vittorio already told me, attracting others is not the point of this
proposal on EU-RALO structure:
In his opinion I "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
this is really a very strange approach to start a regional at-large
organisation. Though I do not think your intention is to establish a closed
shop, I reckon that this will be the outcome of that structure.
To avoid that, skip the dead line of the 15th of february and let us try to
define functions, regional at-large organisations could and should fulfill
and a strategy to get endusers more involved in ICANN policy making.
experience shows, that if you establish an organisation with its own
charter/by-laws, it is hard to change it even if the model prooves not to
work. There is something like a certain organisational tenaciousness
- and of cause the fact, that there are people elected on this bases for two
years contributes to a certain persistance.
People who want to get involved with internet consumer issues in ICANN do
not want to put their energy in changing the rules of an organisation first,
before they can start to work.
So, let us start to discuss possible and effective forms of participation,
possible regional issues and structures, proposals for how to deal with the
problem of different languages etc. And then let us start an "experiment"
which is open to further changes.
Bret Fausett wrote:
I think that there are pros and cons with your proposal....I'm glad the proposal prompted a discussion on these issues. I wanted
to get it out now because I was aware that Europe and Asia-Pacific are
moving forward first and they might set some "precedent" for the rest
of us to follow.
Izumi and Vittorio are correct, of course, that what works for one
region might not be right for another region. Personally, I share a
lot of Wendy's skepticism that the layers of structures built into the
ALAC model dilute the value of participation to the point that ALSs
might well wonder why they should be involved at all. I'm not sure
what a "Council" at the RALO level will do, other than elect ALAC
members and be a conduit for information to and from the ALAC, but if
the European ALSs think it would be valuable, then we should defer to
Siavash made the good point that anything we try, whether the proposal
I floated or the "Council" model, ought to be viewed as experimental,
and we can change the model if it proves not to work.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006