RE: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0

["Jkhan" <Jkhan@MetroMgr.com>]

Denise, I am opposed to Jamie's proposal to eliminate the "at-large"
nomenclature. This is a VERY IMPORTANT PIECE of the document that may be
the fore-runner to a Declaration of Independence. If in fact is a
Declaration-of-Independence, Then let the membership ratify it, and
throw the Tea Party.

WARNING: Go make a pot of coffee, Now!
________________________________________________________________________
__
Consider:
The Emergence of Policy

The emergence for the idealism of; equality and liberty for all, can be
traced back prior to the slogan "e pluribus unum" or "one of many."  The
sentiment of which has reverberated throughout the inner dynamics of
American society for generations. Within this societal myriad, the
individual citizen is subject to a venue of prejudicial proclivities,
from individuals, entities, and government, which result in injury, both
to the individual and society collectively. Through a 'theory of
justice' which is fashioned by a social contract we call our
Constitution, civil rights  emanate from legal provisions forged from
concepts of equality. Ultimately these concepts of civil rights were
incorporated into the Constitution (post civil war era) by the
Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The provisions of the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment supplied the Supreme
Court with the foundation of criteria upon which to build argument. The
elaboration of this argument today in terms of legal forum has cultured
into three distinct philosophies. Arguments by; Principle, Policy,  and
Practices,  are interpreted by the Court to provide for a venue of
solutions. 

The Principle arguments' basis is a clear structure of rules governing
rights and duties. They are considered Libertarian in esprit. 

The arguments' by Policy,  are created by an analysis in which the
measure of Cost  and Benefits  are attempted to be balanced, to the
greatest degree of good for society. This emanates from a Utilitarian
basis which focuses on the variegation of principle. Where by the
deontological process adopts rule that is universally accepted [(K) that
is ethically moral]. This rule will then be further coalesce by monetary
evaluation in terms of an Economic Analysis of Law.  Wherein the
inquisition into the economic aspects of peoples lives are taken into a
rational economic calculus to derive the judicial policy. 

The judicial approach taken in terms of Practice, employs the
contemplation of social custom and culture, and conciliates the delivery
of Constitutional law to Institutions. This creates a Polycentric impact
of Constitutional principle within the specific organization. It is not
held universally, thus not a policy. 
_________________________________________________________________

Now, if your intention of the ALOC Draft 3.0 is only to get to the
bargaining Table, then remove the clause ("at-large), However if you
wish to go to the table with the Polycentric impact of Power, then I
urge you to include it. We can not achieve a Substantive Charter
[Constitution (K)] without it!

James Khan 
Sonoma, Ca. USA
Candidate for Icann-at-Large
_______________________________________________________________________

P.S. Note on Power:

In the interest of demonstrating the Principle of the 'Arguments by
Inclusion', consider the following analogy: 

Take for example your parents (those whom are responsible for our
accident of birth), if you put construction on this difference between
the two, that is to say if you see these parents as different, there is
no harm to segregation; it is merely a recognition of that difference.
To neutral principles, separate but equal was equal. The injury of
separation (e.g. by; race, sex, color, religion, sexuality, etc...) to
People arises 'solely because [they] choose to put construction upon it.
[Epistemologically translated: Funny how we don't see ourselves as
others see us.]
Similarly, if you see a person as just different, even or especially if
you 
don't know that you do, subordination will not look like subordination
at all, much less like harm. It will merely look like an appropriate
recognition of the difference (e.g.; race, sex, color, religion,
sexuality, etc...)  [Epistemologically' translated: how you see it is
not the way it is.]

So the major argument dose not turn on mistaken differentiation (e.g.
it's not the difference that matters.)  The salient quality of a
distinction between the top and the bottom in a hierarchy is not
difference, although top is certainly different from bottom; it is an
advantage of power. Thus the major argument is: subordinate but equal,
is not equal.

 
In judicial contest the weight of the argument lies on the issue of
lives & opportunities (harm) and their rights to free exercise, over the
cost/benefit analysis of rights.

Therefore,

The law (and our organization, Icann-at-large) must find the single most
unifying apportionment means available to achieve a compelling argument
that avoids malapportionment of justice that may violate the Equal
protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which brings the issue of
equality around full circle and whole in principle, and acts as an end
as well as a means to equality.

Jk
________________________________________________________________________
__

IN THE INTREST OF FAIR PRESENTATION CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING  
________________________________________________________________________
___

I would also note here that I do have my Contrarians [the French
Delegation; e.g.: J-F C.(Jefsey)Morfin], that bring up a very very
interesting point of view, that I interpret as:

Those who see individualism as selfishness and narcissism for which the
only remedy is state planning and intervention are in full agreement
with Mussolini, a bit of a narcissist himself, who said (as if
anticipating Ira Magaziner) "The more complicated the forms assumed by
civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must
become." Bringing rights and powers over the bridge of tribe and class
into the hands of government does not diminish world narcissism, it
merely concentrates it in the people who think the rest of us should
improve our characters by letting them tell us what to do.
________________________________________________________________________
__

I regret that I have only an American paradigm to offer, However I am
open to any one who wishes to expound about their Nations' system.
Well, that's just my opinion, and I may be wrong.

jk

-----Original Message-----
From: James Love [mailto:james.love@cptech.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:52 AM
To: Denise Michel ALSC
Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0

Denise, I would suggest you eliminate the phrase "at-large" from the
ALOC, 
unless you have an anyone-can-join membership that elects its own
leaders, 
and replace this with the more accurate "public consultation" phrase or 
something else which acknowledges the real idea of what you are doing.

"Passing off" on the democratic idea of the at-large ICANN membership
for a 
non-democratic group is not very ethical.

Jamie



Denise Michel ALSC wrote:
> This is *not* the "latest version" or "Version 3.0" or a "Proposed
Final Draft" of the "At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
> Submission to the..ERC..On the Design of An At Large Advisory
Committee (ALAC)."  Hans Klein added these titles, along with a
"Preamble" and "Part I" to an *outline of approaches/issues* that needed
to be considered by the ERC's "assistance group" in order to draft
implementation details for an ALAC.  Any ideas this list's participants
have on how to structure an ALAC, of course, are welcome.  However, the
point of this limited ERC assistance group is to quickly provide
*detailed recommendations* on an ALAC for public (your) consideration.  
> 
> Hans may wish to slap some rhetoric on an outline and call it a
potential implementation plan, but that does not make it so. When the
assistance group issues its submission to the ERC, it will be a detailed
proposal for establishing an ALAC on which anyone interested can
comment, change, build upon.  It will not be, nor is it intended to be,
a reflection of the views of all ALOC member organizations or even all
of the ALOC members themselves.  
> 
> Denise
> 
> Denise Michel
> coordinator@at-large.org
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> Cc: "discuss" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> 
> 
> Hans Klein wrote:
> 
> 
>>Sotiris,
>>
>>The draft that you posted is out of date, I believe.  There have been
three
>>revisions since then (2.0, 2.1, 3.0).
>>
>>The biggest change was to add a "Part I" that restates the ALAC's
support
>>for election of At Large directors.
> 
> 
> Hans,
> 
> Thanks for the heads up!  Apologies to all.  Below is the latest
version.
> Comments are welcome and will be submitted.
> 
> ------
> VERSION 3.0 (Proposed Final Draft)
> 
> At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
> Submission to the ICANN Evolution & Reform Committee On the Design of
An At
> Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
> 
> 25 July 2002
> 
> 
> 
> PREAMBLE
> 
> The At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) was set up by ICANN to guide
and
> encourage bottom-up efforts to organize At-Large mechanisms for
meaningful,
> informed participation in ICANN.  The membership list of the ALOC can
be seen
> at: http://www.at-large.org/at-large-members.htm
> 
> This interim report offers recommendations on the organization of an
At Large
> Advisory Committee (ALAC).
> 
> The ALOC finds itself faced with an inherent contradiction, and
therefore the
> ALOC comments are organized in two parts.  On the one hand, the ALOC
offers
> comments on how to implement certain features of the Evolution and
Reform
> Committee's Blueprint for ICANN reform.   However, the ALOC does not
support
> all portions of that Blueprint, especially the elimination of the
elected At
> Large directors.  There is widespread support in the ICANN community
for
> elected At Large Directors.  Pending final resolution of the election
issue,
> however, the ALOC offers advice on what the Evolution and Reform
Committee
> should do and how it should operate
> within ICANN now.
> 
> With ICANN's authority over the DNS up for review and renewal in
September
> 2002, we hope that a way can be found to preserve the representation
of users.
> User representation will ensure a foundation of legitimacy for ICANN
to enable
> it to survive and prosper as an institution.
> 
> We urge the ERC and ICANN to proceed on these issues along a timetable
that
> permits sufficient time for the At-Large Structures within ALOC to
engage in
> genuine deliberation with their constituencies on these important
issues.
> 
> 
> 
> PART I
> SUPPORT FOR THE TERMS OF INTERNET PRIVATIZATION
> 
> The At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) supports the original terms
of
> Internet privatization, most notably the principle of balanced
representation
> of users and industry experts on the ICANN board.  The ALOC also
supports the
> implementation mechanisms developed for At Large users, most notably
the direct
> elections of directors.
> 
> This support has been articulated in numerous documents, including:
> ? Esther Dyson's letter of 6 November 1998 to the US Dept. of Commerce
on
> behalf of the ICANN board.  That letter noted that the ICANN Board has
an
> unconditional mandate to create a membership structure that will elect
nine At
> Large Directors.
(http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/ICANN111098.htm)
> ? The NGO and Academic ICANN Study, which concluded that ICANN should
retain
> balanced representation of users and industry experts on its board and
should
> continue to employ global elections. (http://www.naisproject.org/)
> ? ICANN's At Large Study Commission, which found that ICANN's policies
affect
> users and that users should be elected to the ICANN board.
> (http://www.atlargestudy.org/)
> 
> The ALOC therefore prefers that ICANN not implement the
recommendations in the
> ERC Blueprint and instead work to implement the conditions of
privatization.
> Only an ICANN whose legitimacy is beyond dispute can work in the long
run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PART II
> WORKING WITHIN THE ERC BLUEPRINT
> 
> Whether the ERC blueprint will be the basis for a new ICANN will not
be known
> before the end of this year.  Despite the reservations about that
Blueprint, we
> offer here some suggestions about how its terms might be implemented.
> 
> 1. Background
> a. Need for At-Large: ICANN needs a mechanism for individual users'
> participation in ICANN.  This provides a formalized role in the policy
> development process for users that ensures that user views are
seriously taken
> into account.
> 2. Role and Responsibilities
> a. ALAC is a standing advisory committee of the Board
> b. Provides advice and guidance to the Board and to other
organizations within
> ICANN on the needs of, and the impact of proposed policies on, the
Internet's
> individual users ? addressing pending issues and introducing new
issues
> relevant to Internet issues and within ICANN's purview.
> c. Serves both as a resource for ICANN to pursue specific
issues/questions and
> solicit user information, and as a meeting point for individual
Internet users
> and their organizations.
> d. All ICANN policy-making entities will provide ALAC with appropriate
notice
> of upcoming and pending policy discussions and impending policy
decisions to
> ensure adequate opportunity for At-Large input
> e. Through At-Large Structures, ALAC will engage in outreach to, and
education
> of, individual Internet users about ICANN/ICANN issues and will
involve users
> and their representatives in decision making, aggregation of
> views, and identification of relevant Internet user priorities
> f. ALAC will work with other ICANN stakeholders to address issues and
develop
> positions on relevant issues
> g. ALAC will use on-line mechanisms as focal points for discussions
and
> information dissemination, ensuring broad public access to ALAC
activities
> h.
> 3. Structure/Membership
> a. Should be structured so as to:
> i. Provide effective, broadly inclusive mechanism for involving and
> representing individual Internet users in ICANN's policy and
decision-making
> activities
> ii. Demonstrate that the organizations of which the ALAC is composed
actually
> do represent the populations they claim to represent.
> iii. Have membership that is geographically diverse, and is selected
through a
> process which includes each At-Large Structure (group) that meets
specified
> criteria.
> 4. Involvement w/ Board, other entities
> a. ALAC should have a liaison seat on the ICANN Board
> b. It should have liaisons to other ICANN policy-making bodies as
appropriate
> [To be defined.]
> c. Appointment of four delegates to the Nominating Committee
> 5. "At-Large Structures" Criteria ? new or existing organizations
that:
> a. Are open, participatory, and self-sustaining
> b. Engage in outreach to, and education of, individual Internet users
about
> ICANN and ICANN issues
> c. Involve individual Internet users in policy and decision-making and
> activities related to involvement in ICANN, including soliciting
opinions of
> their members and having participatory mechanisms for the discussion
and/or
> development of policies, aggregating views, and identifying relevant
Internet
> user priorities concerning ICANN
> d. Maintain transparent and publicly accessible processes for input,
policy
> development, and decision-making
> e. Post current information about the organization's aims, structure,
> membership, working mechanisms and current leadership
> f. Are open for new individual members
> g. Are able to maintain themselves without requiring funding from
ICANN
> h. Are able to guarantee and demonstrate the real identity of their
members and
> to provide the relevant anagraphical data in electronic form.
> 6. At-Large Structure Designation/Development
> a. ICANN should post and distribute a call for At-Large Structures,
providing
> organizations with an appropriate period of time apply to be eligible
to
> participate in the initial ALAC.
> b. Organizations fulfilling the criteria can apply to become At-Large
> Structures at any time and participate in the ALAC as appropriate
(immediately
> or during next selection cycle depending on process).
> c. It will be the ALAC's responsibility:
> i. to alter or update the admission criteria for new Structures;
> ii. to exclude from itself any Structure which, after appropriate
verification,
> fails to meet the current criteria;
> iii. to state whether any prospective Structure meets the criteria and
thus can
> be accepted in the process. Deliberations of type i) and ii) require a
majority
> vote of 2/3 of the ALAC.
> d. At Large Structures will not be required to fund ICANN or the costs
of the
> ALAC, even if partially.
> 
> 7. ALAC Composition (options)
> a. (Variable membership) One member from each At-Large Structure
> b. (Fixed membership) Fixed number from each region (ICANN has
traditionally
> addressed geographic diversity based on five regions of the world)
(the
> "Alexander plan")
> c. Fixed membership, half appointed and half elected.
> 8. ALAC Funding and Staffing ALAC (options)
> a. The ALAC could be funded either by its members, by ICANN, or by
some
> combination of the two.
> 
> ###
> 
> 
> 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 
> 



-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de