[alac] Brief summary of comments received on criteria.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marc Schneiders  <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00004.html>

        Asks about organizations which cover more than one region.
        How should they fit in?

Karl Auerbach <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00003.html>

        Criticizes focus on ICANN's "technical" mission; reads this
        as an obligation to demonstrate that "concerns or
        representative organizations arise out of a technical
        foundation", and observes that ICANN most of the time deals
        with non-technical matters.

        Also observes that "worthy as many of the criteria are ...,
        no similar criteria are imposed on ICANN's other
        'stakeholders'." Example: Requirement to disclose funding to
        reveal any conflict.

Leah Gallegos <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00002.html>

        "Aside from a few explatives (sic!) used, I must agree with
        Danny's (Danny Younger) asssessment of the proposed plan."

YJ Park <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00001.html>

        Points to original at-large membership model.  Proposal
        reminds her of building another version of NCUC.  Calls for
        openness towards individual users not associated with
        specific organizations.

        Reconsider geographical regions. + of status quo: easy to
        manage. -: "geographical visions cannot reflect balanced
        views or representation"; points to one region with almost
        half of word's population.  Proposes alternative model with
        eight regions, direct elections, but "may be difficult".
        Detailed mechanisms, financial support for at-large
        participation. Language diversity.

        Comments on at-large structures proper: Transparency of
        at-large structure evaluation.  Minimum level of openness
        should be required before RALO MoU becomes effective.
        Review by RALO members. Public comment on MoU.  Seems to
        suggest minimum number of individual RALO members. (?)
        
Bret Fausett <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00000.html>

        Would like to propose deleting qualification 5 of Proposed
        Minimum Criteria.  Rationale: As long as *certification* is
        "not exclusionary, exclusionary sub-units shouldn't have an
        effect on either the ability of end-users to participate or
        the openness of the at large system as a whole."
        
-- 
Thomas Roessler                 <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>