[atlarge-discuss] Fwd: [aloc] Support in ALOC for Elections

["Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>]

Here is a summary of comments by ALOC members that the ALOC include a 
statement indicating its support for At Large elections.

Hans



>Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:02:25 -0400
>To: aloc@at-large.org
>From: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
>Subject: [aloc] Support in ALOC for Elections
>
>Dear ALOC,
>
>Below are comments from numerous ALOC members supporting a statement in 
>support of elections. Those comments are from:
>         Peter Shane
>         Vittorio Bertola
>         Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Esther Dyson
>         Izumi Aizu
>         Naavi India
>         Hans Klein
>
>To the best of my knowledge, no committee member has opposed inclusion of 
>a statement on elections.
>
>Denise, our facilitator, has indicated opposition (I believe.)  However, 
>even though Denise is paid to do a *lot* of the work for this group, the 
>committee members alone are responsible for its content.
>
>I believe it is appropriate to declare that the committee has consensus on 
>this issue.
>
>Hans
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:59:23 -0400
>>To: aloc@at-large.org
>>From: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
>>Subject: [aloc] Re: Discussion Draft -- Version 2.0
>>Sender: owner-aloc@at-large.org
>>
>>
>>Denise,
>>
>>Concerning version 2.0 of the discussion draft, I think we do need to 
>>acknowledge contradictory nature of our task.
>>
>>The user community does not support the elimination of user 
>>representation on the Board.  If I am wrong about that, please point me 
>>to some reference!   :-)  So the ERC blueprint is very problematic.
>>
>>As we participate in ICANN/ERC processes, we should clearly indicate that 
>>we do not endorse the elimination of user representation.  Only then can 
>>we plunge into the details.
>>
>>After Bucharest some people expressed concern to me that the ALOC 
>>spokespeople gave the impression that we accept the elimination of users 
>>representation.  It is vital not to advocate -- or even to appear to 
>>advocate -- such a position.
>>
>>The text in Version 2.0 of the Discussion Draft acknowledges this 
>>contradiction.  We state our support for user representation, even as we 
>>contribute to the ERC process.  I believe that is consistent with the 
>>positions of individuals in this group as well as the larger user community.
>>
>>Hans
>
>>Delivered-To: hk28@prism.gatech.edu
>>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:30:07 -0400
>>From: Peter Shane <pshane@andrew.cmu.edu>
>>To: Hans Klein <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>, aloc@at-large.org
>>Subject: Re: [aloc] Re: Discussion Draft -- Version 2.0
>>Originator-Info: 
>>login-token=Mulberry:01z3GFrj/k7Q8P4dQlGvH8HSLO/NpV3BL91PIjz+H4Nw==;
>>  token_authority=postmaster@andrew.cmu.edu
>>X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Win32)
>>
>>I agree with Hans that we ought to say something about this, if only to 
>>make clear that we do not agree with taking elections off the table.  The 
>>ONLY feedback I've had from constitutents of InSITeS since Bucharest has 
>>been, why bother doing this if elections are already out of the question? 
>>We do not have to be advocates for elections, but we should indicate that 
>>we are not endorsing the framework within which we are agreeing to 
>>provide input.
>>
>>--On Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:59 PM -0400 Hans Klein 
>><hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Delivered-To: hk28@prism.gatech.edu
>>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:47:40 -0400
>>From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
>>Organization: Hermes Network, Inc.
>>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-SYMPA  (Win98; U)
>>X-Accept-Language: en,fr-CA
>>To: Peter Shane <pshane@andrew.cmu.edu>
>>Cc: aloc@at-large.org
>>Subject: Re: [aloc] Re: Discussion Draft -- Version 2.0
>>Sender: owner-aloc@at-large.org
>>
>>I completely concur with Hans and Peter.  From all the discussions I've 
>>had with
>>fellow members of ICANNAtLarge.com, there has not been a single statement 
>>made
>>in support of eliminating elections.  As the representative of 
>>ICANNAtLarge.com
>>on this committee, I refuse to lend my organization's support to any 
>>intimation
>>(direct or implied) of de facto acceptance of the elimination of elections by
>>user groups.  I think this committee needs to take a firm stand on this 
>>issue.
>>Denise, you cannot simply dismiss this or claim consensus without 
>>including this
>>viewpoint.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>>         ICANNAtLarge.com
>
>At 07:31 PM 7/23/2002 -0400, Peter Shane wrote:
>>The point, I think, is not to "keep pushing for ideas that the ICANN 
>>board keeps rejecting," but to say something, however briefly, that 
>>preserves the ALOC's credibility with external constituencies.  Denise's 
>>approach of advocating constructive suggestions for structure and process 
>>is the right one, but, if we don't at least reserve our objection (as 
>>lawyers like to say) to the ERC approach, there are many who will simply 
>>regard the ALOC as a running dog of something or other.
>
>
>>Delivered-To: hk28@prism.gatech.edu
>>From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>
>>To: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
>>Cc: aloc@at-large.org
>>Subject: Re: [aloc] Re: Discussion Draft -- Version 2.0
>>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:50:21 +0200
>>X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560
>>
>>On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:59:23 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> >After Bucharest some people expressed concern to me that the ALOC
>> >spokespeople gave the impression that we accept the elimination of users
>> >representation.  It is vital not to advocate -- or even to appear to
>> >advocate -- such a position.
>>
>>I agree. There is much sensitivity to this point in the community.
>>
>> >The text in Version 2.0 of the Discussion Draft acknowledges this
>> >contradiction.  We state our support for user representation, even as we
>> >contribute to the ERC process.  I believe that is consistent with the
>> >positions of individuals in this group as well as the larger user 
>> community.
>>
>>I think that Hans's approach is a reasonable compromise between the
>>need to be constructive in the present scenario and the need to report
>>correctly the principles which are prevailing in the user community at
>>this time. Trying to omit the fact that the almost totality of the
>>user community would still prefer ICANN to stick to the original At
>>Large plan, rather than to any flavour of the Blueprint, would simply
>>nullify the credibility of the ALOC.
>>--
>>vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
>
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:11:30 +0900
>>To: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>,
>>         Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>
>>From: Izumi AIZU <izumi@anr.org>
>>Subject: Re: [aloc] Re: Discussion Draft -- Version 2.0
>>Cc: Peter Shane <pshane@andrew.cmu.edu>, aloc@at-large.org
>>Sender: owner-aloc@at-large.org
>>
>>Sorry to join this late.
>>
>>I mostly agree with what Hans started to point out on election and
>>Vittorio suggested.
>>
>>Perhaps one of the important tasks for ALAC is to visit this issue
>>of election and make recommendations for workable and pragmatic
>>solution in not hasty way. I believe that some members of the board at least
>>did agree with the value and need for election in general, but they did not
>>accept the specific proposal made by the ALSC and the AtLarge advocates
>>in Accra that were not sufficient against capture and cost issues for them.
>>
>>Revising this immediately at ALAC may cause some concern for those
>>who do not like the idea of election anyway, but it is still worth
>>to consider it as one of the (better) way of public participation.
>>
>>ALAC's task should not be only election issues, and we need to
>>state that clearly, but election should be one of the main areas,
>>I would suggest.
>>
>>best,
>>
>>izumi
>
>
>>On Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:10 PM -0400 Esther Dyson 
>><edyson@edventure.com> wrote:
>>
>>We should state that there is widespread support for elections, because
>>that is true, but we should also give advice on what the committee should
>>do and how it should operate within ICANN *now.* TO the extent we or
>>anyone speaks to the US Government, there may be a different, more
>>radical message to send. But I do not think the committee should wait
>>for elections to become active.
>>Esther
>
>From: "Naavi_india" <naavi_india@hotmail.com>
>To: <aloc@at-large.org>,
>"Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
>Subject: Re: [aloc] Support in ALOC for Elections
>Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 06:24:00 +0530
>Dear Friends,
>I am also one of those who strongly believe that "Netizen's Representation
>to ICANN through an election process" should be considered a fundamental
>principle that should not be compromised. I do understand the practical
>difficulties but believe that the ICANN management is trying to manipulate
>the process to eliminate the election process permanently.
>ALOC seems to be playing into the hands of the vested interests.
>I had sent the following response to the list which some how did not get
>reported. I am sending it again for your information.
>(Dear Nn Hans, please post this to the list as there seems to be some
>problem with the list accepting my postings).
>Naavi
>
>


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