Re: TOR Independent Review by ICANN
In relevance to the expected amount of comments to the TOR via the independent review of ALAC, and from what I have read it seem there is sufficient quality for the TOR. But it should be noted that in accordance to the structure of ICANN that ALAC is more than just a requirement in the Internet governance or another sub-department that just exist in trying to promote the governance of ICANN. I suppose in the complexity of the structure of ICANN maybe a restructuring is required from the top to bottom and thus shortening the number of sub-organizations that help makeup ICANN can be looked at.
It should also be noted that there should be sufficient comments from all that this affects to ensure that ALAC be kept due to the excellent work being promoted by themselves across the regions it covers. In particular the work being promoted and covered by members in the Latin America/Caribbean region as an example. If their work is disrupted then it not only affect all the other regions that require the same amount of commitment and dedication, but it can also lead to a dismantling of the voices required to help govern the issues being conceived by ICANN in discussions with all organizations and governments alike in the development of Internet Governance.
Thus moving on to the physical TOR questions within each section, being a new member to which my voice will hopefully help to add to the requirements that is needed to show ALAC involvement in representation of individual internet users. If the individual voice have no representation then how can ICANN be considered a true representation of Internet users worldwide it will become a structured voice of those with and those without or even no voice from those that have nothing. There is a very important and required to ensure that the help to close the digital divide that has been shrinking and growing at about the same speed over the years is actually engaged. I do feel that even though these questions in part 1 is a little demeaning they are required, but if ALAC serve its purpose just by showing the level engagement in the work being promoted by them then some of the ignorance show within ICANN can be ignored as ALAC show its purpose.
Questions in part 2 are definitely questions that are more in line with what should be looked at to ensure a properly defined TOR, that is required for ICANN dependence, and independence to ensure that they themselves are delivering what they set out to do as a sub-governance organization. Questions in part 2 sub section Structure again I feel is just like in part 1 it sound a little demeaning as the individuals that represent the individual internet users are surely there for representation of the individual that cannot provide a voice in the understanding of what ICANN do and how they do it. If ALAC is determined unwarranted by this review then the question to ask is why there is ICANN as it will become something of a joke in the terms of its position in the work it suppose to develop and promote.
Questions in the remaining sub sections of part 2 are standard generic questions that will be answered in clear manner as they have been asked. I do suggest that if these actually become the final defining questions on the TOR then hopefully ICANN will be judging clearly how these sub-organizations which include ALAC are defined and operated without prejudice. Hopefully this TOR once finalized will allow such organizations to better perform their definition of their own objectives in terms of their own TOR. It should also lead to a better define TOR of ALAC to operate with. My final hope is that ALAC review leads to further development and inclusion of more individuals that are all trying to improve the development, encouragement and delivery of this technology to everyone whether they have it or have not.
R. Padilla B Sc. M Sc.