Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALAC Conference call

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

Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

Richard Henderson wrote:

> Sotiris
>
> Thank you very much for sharing all this information in an open attempt to
> keep the membership involved. This is much appreciated.
>
> Some comments are interspersed below:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> To: discuss <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:15 AM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] ALAC Conference call
>
> > All,
> >
> > This morning I took part in the ALAC tele-conference
> > call.  Here are some notes I took:
> >
> > Denise started the call out by relaying some feedback from
> > ICANN's Stuart Lynn.
>
> Well that contextualizes this initiative immediately : it's a top-down ICANN
> initiative and, as such, should not be greatly favoured by an AtLarge
> membership which has consistently requested their right to represent
> themselves at Board level

  Precisely correct here Richard. The ALSC study comments and polls
take on that Mailing list for the Atlargeforum clearly point this up.
But I can also understand that Denise is wanting feedback from
Stuart Lynn also.

>
>
> >She said the feedback was mostly
> > Stuart's personal comments (and _not_ on behalf of the ERC
> > or ICANN necessarily) on the still very vague concept of
> > an ALAC.
> > --------
> > Feedback as reported by Denise Michel, Stuart was not on
> > the call (almost verbatim notes, as best as I could so
> > please don't fault me for trying): Stuart Lynn's
> > interpretation: ALAC draft ought to expand upon
> > justification of why there should even be an ALAC;
>
> Immediately, the ICANN Board is pre-supposing that this SHOULD be justified.
> I believe that the majority view in the AtLarge community is that ALAC
> represents a smokescreen and, as Danny Younger has put it, a way of
> "institutionalising" the removal of AtLarge elected representatives with
> voting powers on the Board. Therefore, Denise is immediately calling on the
> AtLarge community to "justify" something which goes in the opposite
> direction to the way most of us want to go.

  Yes and this too was also attempted in the ALSC study as well.
Fortunately myself along with a number of others to include Sotiris
of note, thwarted that spin during the time that "Study" was
ongoing.  The ALAC is just another attempt to do more of the
same without the direct input of the stakeholders/users in an open
and transparent forum.  So as a smokescreen this second attempt
has already failed.

>
>
> She's basically saying: "You can't have representatives on the Board
> anymore. Justify what we've done!"

  Exactly!  And Denise is so wrong for promoting such nonsense.

>
>
> > provide
> > details of its structure.
>
> OK... we elect ALL of its membership (after all, why shouldn't the AtLarge
> run its own committee?); we elect its leader and the person who will
> co-ordinate it and draft its reports; we vote on whether to continue its
> existence and insist on representation on the Board as a condition of its
> existence and participation (NOT some piffling, "possible" concession of a
> single representative on the Nominating committee - a pathetic concession
> that would only be granted in the knowledge that such a representative would
> always be outvoted by a majority of stooges)
>
> AFTER those priority issues are established (not before), I would then agree
> that considerable work was needed on the mechanisms and structure.
>
> But once again, what we actually have is a top-down pre-supposition that we
> embrace Stuart Lynn's initiative - talk on structure is just "getting us to
> talk about the mechanisms for our own disenfranchisement".

  Yes it seems clear that this nonsense from Denise and the Teleconference
is basically just lip service parroting what Stuart Lynn wants to hear.
Well that's not what he is there for...  But it may be that Stuart is
too foolish or too stupid and egotistical to understand that...

> Sure, we can be
> present at these meetings, but again and again, we MUST assert the TRUE
> AtLarge demands and principles, and repeatedly condemn the real intent and
> purposes of this initiative.

  Exactly Right here again!

>
>
> Sotiris, your faithful attempt to represent what was said indicates much too
> much concessionary conversation, and nothing like robust enough expression
> of the AtLarge demands, principles and agenda. The people of the world, the
> millions of Internet users, deserve to be represented at the heart of ICANN,
> and have a right to assert their own agenda, their own terms... which does
> not include becoming ICANN's lapdog. All this talk about the detail plays
> exactly into Denise's hands. We - not her - should be insisting on the
> program, the step-by-step conditions, the precise draft and message to
> ICANN, and the continuing unbending demands for the restoration of elected
> representatives on the Board.

  I agree here.  However we as ICANNATLARGE.COM members
must display and confront this ficticous ALA effort/ruse as well as
the ICANN BOD and staff as to this fact!

>
>
> > Also, he noted that current
> > advisory committees are appointed by the Board, why should
> > this be any different?
>
> Top-down
>
> > He wanted an exploration of the
> > council idea and he stated that seats on the nominating
> > committee for Board elections is an open issue.
>
> As I've explained above, that is a "con" and a wholly inadequate
> substitution for elected representatives on the Board.
>
> > Also, he
> > apparently commented on the role of liaisons in the eyes
> > of the ERC as individuals who help the flow of
> > communication between the ERC and ALAC.  [I was a bit
> > unclear about this last bit myself myself, but I made the
> > note and so here it is.]
>
> If the AtLarge movement wanted any liaison individuals then that is for the
> AtLarge movement to decide and choose (democratically) - and certainly,
> Denise Michel should be replaced in my opinion by someone fundamentally
> trusted by the AtLarge community and chosen from its ranks

  Also agreed.  We from the ICANNATLARGE.COM must choose by
election, whom represents the members...

>
>
> > ---------
> >
> > After this we launched into a general discussion in which
> > the theme of elections figured pretty prominently.
>
> Elections to what? To the Board. ALSG has already TOLD the Board this, and
> they just ignored it, so this issue should come BEFORE anything else, and a
> protest note should head any and every document and e-mail sent by AtLarge
> groups to ICANN. If ICANN refuse to discuss the issue of elections to the
> Board, what is left to discuss? Rather, we protest and demand, and set
> everything else within that context.
>
> We must NOT lose focus, or we'll just get sucked into Stuart Lynn's "vague"
> ALAC sham
>
> > Esther
> > Dyson's comments in an email prior to the teleconference
> > had underlined the centrality of the issue of elections,
> > and questions of legitimacy.
>
> On the issue of legitimacy, who was Esther representing when she took part
> in this teleconference? As Joanna Lane stated, if Esther, then why not
> Joanna (or anyone else?). Is Esther, in fact, helping Denise to steer this
> initiative through to some kind of fianl package which - once in place -
> signs and seals the Board's "reform" of the AtLarge (eg removes our
> representatives on the Board). Esther - no insults intended - but what
> precisely is your role in this, what is your mandate for taking part, what
> is your legitimacy? Who do you represent?
>
> > Tommi Kaartavi spoke in
> > support of E. Dyson's comments regarding mention of
> > elections in our final draft.
>
> Mention of elections should BE our final draft.
>
> No elections, no ALAC.
>
> > Peter Shane had trouble
> > understanding how we could talk of elections now or later,
> > when there's no positions for which to be elected. E.
> > Dyson talked of putting off actual elections for now...but
> > not necessarily ruling them out later.
>
> Yes, that's always a good trick. They're a "good idea, children, but we'll
> talk about all that later (maybe) - for now, let's just carry on dismantling
> the AtLarge powerbase..."
>
> "Not necessarily ruling them out later".... means: let's just carry on with
> the top-down ICANN initiative and not let the elections issue get in the way
> of your disenfranchisement...
>
> > I asked why/if the
> > ALSC study is off the table
>
> Well done, Sotiris - that was the primary issue and the primary question
>
>  to which E. Dyson responded:
> > ALSC recommendations are not off the table.
>
> Ha! Tell that to Stuart Lynn! Does Esther REALLY believe that? They're only
> back on the table if DoC makes them a condition, and that's another reason
> why we should be insisting on them
>
> > [Indeed, they
> > are mentioned in her comments on the ALAC draft so far.]
> > Izumi Aizu said words to the effect that there is
> > skepticism over direct elections, but also over the
> > indirect approach, and that he would like to see both
> > sides come together and articulate how the ALAC can
> > reasonably propose direct representation without capture
> > fears.
>
> Obviously Izumi needs to speak for himself on this point, but on the face of
> it, this seems to undermine the majority AtLarge view calling for elected
> representation on the ICANN Board - he seems to be implying that there would
> be something a bit "dodgy" about elections. To be fair on Izumi, there
> obviously ARE issues of integrity of process, but I feel these remarks can
> be used by opponents like Joe Sims to justify NO elections at all. It's like
> saying: The last American presidential election may not have been a safe
> result, therefore we shouldn't have presidential elections. I hope what
> Izumi meant was: "We should DEFINITELY have elections, to elect Board
> members, and to silence critics, lets make the process as efficient and
> transparent as possible."
>
> > Denise Michel was skeptical about providing the
> > details of how elections and direct representation can be
> > ironed out in two weeks
>
> There you go then - "let's not talk about elections! let's talk about ALAC
> instead!" - which is the ICANN Board's proposed substitute for elections
> anyway
>
> > [i.e. prior to the August 16
> > deadline for this draft for the ERC].  Peter Shane
> > (InSITeS - Institute for the Study of Information
> > Technology and Society, www.cmu.edu/insites) stated that
> > Esther's amendments to the proposal do have merit, but he
> > added that his group is not an advocacy group, and he was
> > concerned about representations regarding his
> > association's official position as per its membership's
> > collective views on the issues.  He was specifically
> > concerned by the idea of deferment of elections and he
> > stressed the fact that he lacked any mandate from his
> > organization to take a position on the delay or deferment
> > of elections.
> >
>
> >...CONTINUED:
> >
> >I expressed my satisfaction and agreement with Peter's Shane's
> >reservations and concern(s).  Gabriel Piñeiro, (LatinoamerICANN,
> >www.latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar) stated that elections are appropriate
> >_after_  structure is determined.  Peter Shane thought the ALAC
> >composition needs to be addressed and that the substance of Vittorio's
> >plan may be too complex for average Users and the general public to
> >understand, let alone participate in.  [the notes are rather haphazard
> >from this point forward as the conference was somewhat disjointed and I
> >am not a professional scribe]  At some point, Esther expressed a concern
> >over getting people to do work, and floated the idea of an ALAC Executive
> >body which actually does the work (or at least those who do the work
> >among them will eventually become apparent, as well as those who don't)
> >and that this might actually spur people to be more productive as opposed
> >to self-defeating.
>
> More productive in constructing the ICANN Board's own initiative, rather
> than criticising it? It's all a bit like being told to construct your own
> tomb - or, in this case, the Tomb of the AtLarge movement, after the death
> of democracy
>
> >Esther Dyson thought it would be prudent to apprise
> >the DOC and other public bodies of ALAC efforts and progress.
>
> Look DoC!!! ICANN is serious about AtLarge representation!!! Aren't we being
> good!!! You can trust good old ICANN... you see, Stuart Lynn was right all
> along... you didn't actually need elected Board members anyway... can't you
> see, the AtLarge movement is happily taking part in the new ALAC... and they
> LOVE it!
>
> >Izumi Aizu
> >expressed concern over disenfranchising some countries an wished for the
> >ALAC to articulate the notion that when and if a developing countries
> >at-large structure(s) wish to take part in ALAC efforts, they would be
> >treated in an equitable/fair manner.
>
> But Izumi, the WHOLE AtLarge movement has been disenfranchised! And ICANN's
> going to worry that the AtLarge is "treated in an equitable/fair manner"?
> Point taken, all countries deserve adequate representation - point NOT
> taken, there is no representation.
>
> >I mentioned Jefsy Morfin and his
> >france@large and asked whether Denise was in communication with Jefsey
> >over the inclusion of his france@large, Denise Michel responded that she
> >had been in contact with Jefsey and that she had simply fallen behind in
> >her update duties as webmaster for at-large.org. Edmundo Valenti,
> >(Internet Society Argentina Chapter, www.isoc.org.ar) thought it was
> >important to work within ICANN to bring abot any changes, he expressed
> >support for an At-Large presence on the Nominating Comittee,
>
> I'm sorry, but this will be powerless, and is a wholly inadequate
> substitution for AtLarge elected representatives on the Board. This is
> ignominious defeat. Be clear about this. We cannot accept these terms.
> Millions and millions of users - the largest constituency in the world -
> reduced to a possible place on the Nominating Committee (where it can be
> outvoted anyway). All this is about is the ICANN leadership making sure that
> its most critical dissidents are rendered powerless. Let's get real about
> this!
>
>  and he was
> >particularly concerned with effecting a regional approach to the At-Large
> >and any elections that may or may not happen at some point in the
> >future.  I stated that it was important to clarify ALAC membership
> >criteria and how/by whom criteria will be applied;
>
> A good point, Sotiris : it must be defined and applied by the AtLarge
> movement itself, NOT imposed by the ICANN Board - otherwise it merely ends
> up representing the ICANN Board, not the AtLarge. And as I say, if it is not
> coupled to elections to the Board, it is not acceptable anyway - because its
> just perpetuates the Board's coup anyway
>
>  also that it would
> >probably be a good idea to clarify that should the ALAC proceed that it
> >should be viewed as open-ended and evolving (i.e. that it might have room
> >to expand its role if necessary at a later time and not be pigeon-holed
> >from the get-go).
>
> I don't entirely agree. It should have clear and defined purposes, and its
> purpose should be to demand AtLarge elected representation on the Board.
> After all, ALSG was a kind of Advisory Committee, and that's what THEY
> advised. If you make it too open-ended and fuzzy at the edges, then the
> CENTRAL issue of representation on the Board will be swept under the carpet
> ("for the time being" eg forever) and a morass of residual issues will be
> used to indicate that the ALAC is, in fact, the ideal way to represent the
> AtLarge movement. To return to Izumi's earlier comments about "capture", the
> real danger of capture comes if you DON'T have elections!
>
>  Núria de la Fuente Teixidó, (STEC - Sistemas Técnicos
> >de Enseñanza Consultores, www.stec.info) thought it important to take the
> >necessary steps -- i.e. to identify main actors and build communities;
> >it's hard to talk about an election without a structure; ALAC ought to
> >try to put At-Large inside ICANN
>
> No, no, no : the AtLarge is a community - and should become a movement -
> independent of ICANN, but with the right to be represented at the heart of
> ICANN. The vast majority of people we represent are just ordinary
> individuals who use the Internet or potentially benefit from it. There must
> be a distinction between the permanent independence of the AtLarge, and its
> legitimate roles inside ICANN.
>
> If Nuria means we should have representatives on the Board "inside ICANN"
> then I agree. If Nuria means the AtLarge should be run and operated from
> inside ICANN, as a part of ICANN, then that's missing the point.
>
> >but to emphasize education, outreach,
> >and a bottom-up approach to the ALAC so it listens to people.  I
> >suggested a web form which would forward directly to all members of the
> >ALAC or some such direct input vehicle.  I also asked about whether ALAC
> >discussions, drafts and topics could be shared with ICANNAtLarge.com
> >members to which the reply was affirmative.
>
> If ICANN goes ahead and foists an ALAC on the AtLarge community, instead of
> elected Board members, there should definitely be an ALAC Public Forum and
> also a Mailing List, so that ALL members of the AtLarge community can
> participate and be heard - moreover, all members of any ALAC and also the
> ICANN Board itself should actively participate in such open forums. If you
> look at the Public Comment Forums at the moment, the ICANN Board just runs
> away and hides, because it can't answer the issues and views raised. There
> is NO dialogue. There is no responsiveness. I'm still waiting 121 days and
> 82 days after I sent Dan Halloran two serious mails. There should not just
> be "top-down" drafts sent to the AtLarge community. There should be
> mechanisms for "bottom-up" comments. And most importantly, there should be
> mechanisms and a willingness on the part of the ICANN Board and Staff to
> actively engage in dialogue... there has been NO sign of this to date. ICANN
> pretends it wants an interface with the AtLarge - but in fact, it doesn't
> want an interface (which would involve sustaining criticism and having to
> answer difficult questions)... it wants a means of controlling the
> AtLarge...
>
> This whole ALAC initiative is about "damage limitation"...
>
> And that's why our very participation in it is potentially so damaging
>
> >Denise asked that the
> >discussion continue and focus on *details* of how an ALAC might be
> >structured and function.
>
> >That's where the teleconference ended.  If I missed or misrepresented
> >anything, Denise, Izmi, and Esther are all on this list and they can
> >point it out.
>
> >Sincerely,
>
> >Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >        ICANNAtLarge.com ALOC Representative
>
> Sotiris, I heartily thank you for your openness and transparency, and this
> was a really helpful posting by you to the AtLarge community.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Richard Henderson
>
>

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