Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALAC Draft for Public Comment

[Jan Siren <sirenj@earthlink.net>]

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>
> http://alac.icann.org/drafts/draft-als-ralo-4jun03.htm
>
> The ALAC has posted a document entitled "At-Large Infrastructure Formation
> Proposals:
> Draft for Public Comment".  As there has been no discussion of this document
> whatsoever on their discussion list, one can only assume that this too was
> drafted by Icann Staff (Denise Michel) and posted without the Committee's
> knowledge.  No notice of this document has appeared on the GA discussion list or any
> other list at this time.
>
> Will the Panel of this organization publicly respond to the plan outlined by
> the ALAC?  If it fails to respond, the ICANN Board will assuredly
> automatically endorse the ALAC recommendations without debate (citing the lack of
> community objections).  Now is your chance to act.  Will you act, or will you throw
> out another lame set of excuses as has been the pattern heretofore?

Danny, thanks for letting those of us who do not regularly visit ICANN's
website know about this.  Speaking for myself, I hope the Panel *does not*
respond to this.  They weren't elected to do it and they have a different job
to do.  I would have voted for *other* candidates, possessing a different
skill set, had I wanted them to do this sort of thing.  On the other hand,
members of this organization are perfectly capable of reading the draft
themselves and submitting comments to ICANN, as I have done.

Text of my comment, submitted to ICANN on 12 June 2003, follows:

---

I write as an individual US citizen.  The following comment is a response to
the ICANN draft document "At-Large Infrastructure Formation Proposals," dated
4 June 2003.  My numbering corresponds to that in the draft document.

I. The binding of At-Large Structures (ALSes) to geographic regions should be
permissible, but not compulsory.  ICANN regions have never been a
particularly appropriate match to at-large users' interests.  In the age of
economic globalization, geographic regions are becoming ever less well
matched to commercial and industrial interests as well.  Provision should be
made for international and global at-large organizations not limited to ICANN
regions.

II. The certification process should be capable of certifying international
and global ALSes no less promptly than it does regional ALSes.

III. Regional At-Large Organizatiions (RALOs) will develop slowly at best.
Restricting them geographically to ICANN regions will guarantee that their
rate of growth will remain significantly less than the rate of growth on
Internet usage world wide.  RALOs will for the foreseeable future be "playing
catch-up" and will not acquire membership at a rate adequate to provide their
members a significant voice in Internet governance.

IV. The review process should be enlarged to include ALSes of international
or global scope in addition to regional ALSes.

V. Description item 7 should be revised so that the process overall fairly
addresses the applications of ALSes that are international or global in
scope.  Objective 19 (misnumbered Objective 15 in the draft document) biases
the acceptance against ALSes whose scope is greater than regional, and which
may not choose to be bound within a single RALO or subset of the five RALOs.


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