Re: [alac] ALAC discussions (moved to the public list)

["Roberto Gaetano" <alac_liaison@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The main differences between a constituency and ALAC are that the 
constituency is limited in scope to GNSO matters, and statement related to 
policy have to be submitted by the GNSO and not by individual 
constituencies.
For instance, ALAC could provide advice on matters related to address 
allocation, while a GNSO constituency could not for two reasons: the mater 
will be out of scope, and the constituency does not have the authority to 
bypass the Name Council.
Incidentally, wasn't the addition of new constituenies to the (then) DNSO 
already attempted (Berlin, 1999, and following), and failed?
As I already commented during the f2f meeting, I believe that 2005 is a 
crucial year: a good time for evaluating ALAC would be end of 2005, provided 
we have defined a set of criteria against which to measure "success".
Regards,
Roberto GAETANO
ALAC
ICANN BoD Liaison


> From: Bret Fausett <fausett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [alac] ALAC discussions (moved to the public list)
> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 12:57:50 -0300
>
> I'm new here, but I'm fairly optimistic about the things I'm hearing about 
> the ALAC. We've spent some substantial time today discussing our future, 
> but I left the discussion rather encouraged.
>
> By the way, the current ICANN Bylaws (and all previous versions) provide a 
> mechanism for accrediting new constituencies for the GNSO. See, 
> http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4  We could certainly 
> facilitate ALAC groups with similar interests (like libraries, educators, 
> etc.)  in the process of becoming a GNSO constituency. I would rather 
> follow that path than see GNSO constituencies replace the ALAC.
>
>        -- Bret
>
> > For an addition to the agenda, can we confront the major question head-on: 
> > Is ALAC (and its ponderous ALS-RALO appendages) a meaningful, appropriate, 
> > or sufficient  means for individual involvement in ICANN?  After two years 
> > at it, I think the answer is no, but I think we're at least well placed to 
> > propose some better alternatives.  What about jump-starting some other 
> > full-fledged constituencies to complement non-commercial: libraries, 
> > educators, registrants, privacy constituency?  It's plain there are a lot 
> > of people who are burned out from trying to deal with ICANN, but many more 
> > might participate if given meaningful opportunities on par with commercial 
> > interests, rather than subordinate to them.

_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.com/