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

[mom@xxxxxxxxxx]

> thanks, very helpful.
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/
>
>
>