Re: [atlarge-discuss] [Comments] ALS and RALO

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

YJ and all fellow members or other interested parties,

  Very good comments and questions here YJ.  Well done!

  Have you submitted this to the actual ALSC comments "Black Hole"
ML yet?

YJ Park wrote:

> FYI,
> This was sent as my personal comments.
>
> From:YJ Park, Internet User, a member of ICANNatlarge.org
> To: ALAC/ICANN
> Date: April. 22. 2003
> Re: At-Large Structures, and Proposed Guidelines for Regional At-Large
> Organizations' (RALOs) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would like to thank ALAC members for offering comments from Internet
> users. I hereby provide my observations based on my five-year experience
> with ICANN since 1999.
>
> 1. Strong concerns in ALS and Individual Users.
>
> The concept of Internet users' direct partcipation was introduced to
> facilitate their partcipation not to block individual users' participation.
> According to the proposal, however, an individual who isn't associate
> with any specific "qualified" organization, it seems almost "impossible"
> for them to participate in ICANN process as At-Large members which
> is against the very concept.
>
> On the other hand, there is a "non-commercial users constituency(NCUC)"
> within the GNSO/ICANN structure and this proposal reminds me of building
> another version of non-profit(commercial) organizations' constituency.
>
> Even though the proposal emphasizes on somewhat open-end participation,
> it's a bit unclear how an individual user can participate in this process if
> she/he intentionally chooses not to be associate with any specific
> organization.
>
> "Each RALO's Memorandum of Understanding shall 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."
>
> What if those two different membership application processes are accepted,
> would there be any difference between an individual who is associated with
> an ALS and an independent individual? These are all unclear.
>
> In conclusion, at-large structure should be still as open as possible to the
> individual users under the umbrellar of designated At-Large constituency.
> Therefore, Internet users can participate in the structure whenever they
> want to.
>
> 2. The concept of arbitrary "five" Geographical division and its following
> representation should be reconsidered.
>
> merits: Geographical division can be comparatively easy to be managed.
> demerits: Geographical division cannot reflect balanced views or
> representation. i..e. A certain region categorized in the proposed draft
> currently hits almost a half of world population.
>
> 3. Proposal
> "At-Large Constituency divided according to the number of Internet Users"
> can be considered as one of options.
>
> Every two years at some point, the number of Internet users worldwide is
> expected to be reported to ICANN.
>
> Based on the reported statistics, ICANN divides "eight"(under the scenario
> that At-Large members are going to resume their rights to elect BoDs) or
> whatever agreed numbers later.
>
> merits: This proposal can represent the Internet users in a more balanced
> manner.
> demerits: This may be a bit difficult to be managed.
>
> 4. ICANN should prepare some detailed mechanism such as financial
> support to make At-Large members meaningfully participate in the ICANN
> process and let their views reflected in the decision-making process.
>
> 5. Working Language should be diversified.
>
> The proposal says formal documents should be processed in English
> which is not the first language for many Internet users around the world.
>
> 6. In case of ALS proposal goes through......
>
> ALS membership evaluation
>
> Even though ALS membership criteria evaluation process is managed
> by the ALAC members, the whole evaluation process record should be
> transparently archived and open to the Internet users.
>
> 7. In case of RALO proposal goes through...
>
> The RALO will select 2 individuals from its region (the individuals may
> not be citizens of the same country) to serve as members of the ALAC.
>
> "may" --> "can" Therefore, we have to make sure the representatives
> have more balanced structure.
>
> 8. Question: Should a minimum level of openness be required before a
> RALO's MoU becomes effective? YES.
>
> If so, what should this threshold look like?
>
> Before MoU is signed by RALO and ICANN, the draft MoU should be
> reviewed by the RALO members and give at-large members chance
> to make comments.
>
> According to the proposal, RALO should include minimum of 3 certified
> At-Large Structures based in at least 2 different countries within the
> RALO's Geographic Region.
>
> What if RALO does have minimum of 500 individual members in at least
> 2 different countries within the RALO's geographica Region?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for your attentions.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 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