Re: [alac] ICANN bylaw changes on At-Large **your commentsneeded**

[Izumi AIZU <izumi@xxxxxxx>]

Sorry for my silence.

I quite agree with let it be open now.  Most Asian societies are quite
group-oriented and it is not so easy to find individuals to apply for
membership without group/organizational influence or connection.

Capture is one thing, but maximum participation is very important
and not easy to achieve.

I have been in Geneva this week attending WSIS (World Summit on Information
Society)　PrepCom2, trying to expand NGO/Civil Society participation.
So far no good, though.  (similar problem elswhere...).

I met Vittorio, briefly, among others. Too bad I cannot spend any time
with him in person. Amadeo was also there.

thanks,

izumi



At 20:13 03/02/21 -0500, Esther Dyson wrote:
> I agree.  Let's leave it open until thing start emerging by themselves. 
> Overall, it should be as loose as possible.
>
> Esther
>
> At 04:58 PM 2/18/2003, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> > I agree it's best to leave the structural detail out of the bylaws for
> > now.
> >
> > While we want them to make clear and irrevocable that the RALOs and
> > Structures represent the voices of individuals not organizations, we don't
> > want a formalism in the bylaws to block participation of groups that
> > genuinely represent individuals but also accept organizational members.
> > It depends which is the more likely scenario: an individuals-only policy
> > blocks ISOC chapter and other individual participation, or lack of such a
> > policy permits some company to "organize"  an At-Large Structure and
> > capture its RALO? I tend to think the problem of preventing organizational
> > capture should be left to the RALOs in the first instance; and that too
> > detailed a policy may hamper the groups most effectively representing
> > individuals.
> >
> > --Wendy
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for bringing this up again.
> > >
> > > On 2003-02-18 12:29:33 -0800, Denise Michel wrote:
> > >
> > > > **Should the ALAC consider changing the bylaws to allow
> > > > organizations (with appropriate missions) that have both
> > > > individual and organizational/corporate memberships to be
> > > > designated as At-Large Structures?  For example, the Association
> > > > for Internet Professionals (AIP) has both individual and
> > > > corporate memberships, and some ISOC chapters also have this
> > > > construct.
> > >
> > > > **What about organizations that have a mission of
> > > > advancing/protecting individual Internet users' interests,
> > > > involve individuals in their policy development and other
> > > > activities, and could contribute to ICANN policy/issue debates,
> > > > but are not membership organizations?  Should they be allowed to
> > > > have some role in the At Large infrastructure?  If so, what?  For
> > > > example, the Consumers' Union/Consumer Policy Institute and EPIC
> > > > (Electronic Privacy Information Center) may be examples of this
> > > > type of organization.
> > >
> > > My proposal (still -- I'm attaching my earlier message on this) is
> > > to leave the bylaw language as open as possible, with the
> > > understanding that details MUST be sorted out in the RALOs' MoUs
> > > with ICANN, and that it'll be ICANN's and the ALAC's responsibility
> > > to ensure that the MoU's criteria match basic principles of regional
> > > focus, and of focus on individual users' interests.
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> The conversation continues..... at
> http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
>
> PC Forum 2003 - March 23 to 25, Phoenix
> Who? what? where? Data comes alive!