[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications
Joanna and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
Very good review here Joanna. It is clear that after further review
of the "Incomplete" archives of the ALAC that most of the
remarks that Vittorio has made art at a minimum obtuse, if not
purposefully misleading. Karl was correct, it doesn't matter.
ICANN has long ago made up these sorts of decisions years
ago now. There will be no Stakeholder/user representation
or active participation in ICANN. Everything being said and done
such as the ALAC, is only window dressing or for appearances
purposes...
Joanna Lane wrote:
> Vittorio wrote:
> > 2/3 of the ALAC are going to be elected as soon as the RALOs will be
> formed.
>
> Karl replied:
> >Which really doesn't mean anything.
>
> Vittorio replied:
> > I agree with your analysis, but Joanna's complaint was that the RALOs
> > were not going to elect their representatives, and this is false.
>
> Vittorio,
> It doesn't matter whether the RALOs elect representatives or not, since
> ICANN has already made sure it can hand pick the electorate and by the new
> Bylaws, it can cut out individual users altogether. These Bylaws, far from
> protecting the rights of individual users to participate in the At large,
> are carefully crafted to put in place a structure that can be used to
> exclude individual users altogether from the At Large. Look the facts,
> starting with the newly published ALAC archive.
> http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/:-
>
> On Feb20th, Denise posted the draft Bylaws, a section of which states:-
> (i) The ALAC is responsible for certifying organizations as
> > meeting the criteria and standards for At-Large Structures.
> > The criteria and standards for certification of At-Large
> > Structures within a each Geographic Region shall be
> > established by the Board and based on recommendations of the
> > ALAC, so that each RALO is afforded the type of structure
> > that best fits its Geographic Region's customs and
> > characteristics. Those criteria and standards shall be
> > stated in the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and
> > the RALO for that Geographic Region. They shall ensure that
> > At-Large Structures appropriately represent and involve
> > individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of
> > the RALO's geographical region. Decisions to certify or
> > de-certify an At-Large Structure as meeting the applicable
> > criteria and standards shall require a 2/3 vote of all the
> > members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according
> > to procedures the Board may establish. The ALAC may also
> > give advice as to whether a prospective At-Large Structure
> > meets the applicable criteria and standards.
>
> On Feb 22, Esther said she thought the Denise's Bylaws changes looked fine.
> http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00057.html
>
> But three days later, on Feb 25th, the Bylaws that were officially adopted
> used completely different language that had magically appeared, and had not
> been approved by any due process that I can see, in the ALAC or anywhere
> else. http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00072.html
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appa-25feb03.htm
>
> Language that appeared in the original draft is now missing from the adopted
> version, including "They shall ensure that At-Large Structures appropriately
> represent and involve individual Internet users who are citizens or
> residents of the RALO's geographical region. "
>
> Instead, we have this:- "If so provided by its Memorandum of Understanding
> with ICANN, a RALO may also include individual Internet users who are
> citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's Geographic Region."
>
> By my reading, the phrase "If so provided" removes the obligation to include
> individuals, meaning it is now left to the Board's discretion whether or not
> individual users are included, and if not explicitly provided for,
> individuals may well be left out. Furthermore, the phrase "shall insure" has
> been switched to " may also include", which can also be read as "may not
> include". There goes the user's rights to participate in the At Large with a
> dissenting voice.
>
> There is not even any comfort in the subsequent clause, "Each RALO's
> Memorandum of Understanding shall also include provisions designed to allow,
> to the greatest extent possible, every individual Internet user who is a
> citizen of a country within the RALO's Geographic Region to participate in
> at least one of the RALO's At-Large Structures." Does the phrase, "to the
> greatest extent possible" sound familiar? It should. This carries as much
> weight as ICANN's now infamous commitment to operating in an open and
> transparent manner, "to the maximum extent feasible", which as we all know,
> has been shrouded in secrecy and back room dealing for years.
>
> What can the ALAC do about this? Nothing, because it's authority has been
> further diminished in the new version, whereby the original "The criteria
> and standards for certification of At-Large Structures within a each
> Geographic Region shall be established by the Board and based on
> recommendations of the ALAC.....", have been amended to "Once the criteria
> and standards have been established, (by the Board) the ALAC shall be
> responsible for certifying organizations as meeting the criteria and
> standards for At-Large Structures."
>
> So, all in all, the RALO election process, which you have cited as if it is
> meaningful in some way, actually looks something like this:-
>
> + ICANN Staff writes RALO MoU and passes to Board for approval
> + Board approves MoU and passes to the ALAC to implement
> + ALAC authorization is limited to approving Organizations willing to agree
> ICANN MoU
> + RALOs may (or may not) include individual memberships
> + Approved Organizations elect representatives with (or without) individual
> user participation
>
> So essentially, ICANN Staff have ensured that any users that do not agree to
> their requirements for the At large, can participate by...well... getting
> lost, right?
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de