Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jkhan and all stakholders or other interested parties,

  The ALOC 3.0 draft has absolutely no chance of becoming anything
close to a * Declaration of Independence * as you put it.  SHeeesh!

  In fact we have in effect such a similar document in the DOC/NTIA's
White Paper, and the MoU could be compared to the * Bill of Rights *
I suppose...

Jkhan wrote:

> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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