Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: a few questions

[James Love]

Denise, How do your efforts relate to the Lynn/McLaughlin proposal?

. Forums
[In order to help generate participation, facilitate meaningful
deliberation, and structure input, I propose a reformulation of the existing
constituency concept. The currently existing DNSO constituencies would be
invited to continue as self-organized, cross-Council Forums within ICANN.
The Forums could then participate in each of the Councils, offering input,
developing and evaluating proposals, and advocating on behalf of their
members, as they see fit. For example, the ISP Forum would be a channel for
its members to formulate and give input about gTLD, ccTLD, and addressing
policy issues, and would be a venue for input to the Nominating Committee.
The Forums would be expected to re-orient away from debates over procedure
and toward deliberations on substantive DNS policy matters. As it currently
the case, some Forums would by definition be limited to members defined by
the existence of a contractual relationship with ICANN (e.g., the gTLD
registries, ccTLD registries, and gTLD registrars), while others would be
more open and defined by function (e.g., the ISPs, business, non-commercial,
and intellectual property constituencies).

New Forums could be created as well. For example, an At Large organization
based on regional entities, as proposed by the At Large Study Committee,
could be organized for individuals. By eliminating the current concept of
mathematically equal representation for each constituency on the DNSO Names
Council, ICANN could more readily develop and implement well-defined minimal
criteria for recognition of new self-organized Forums (for example, we might
imagine Forums for universities and academic networks, individuals, small
business users, backbone providers, etc.) without encountering resistance
from existing Forums due to a feared dilution of influence. This would
significantly reduce the barriers to participation in policy discussions and
deliberations by groups with common interests and objectives.]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Denise Michel ALSC" <dmichel@atlargestudy.org>
To: <forum@atlargestudy.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:10 PM
Subject: [ALSC-Forum] Re: a few questions


>
> The situation we find ourselves in clearly is not ideal.  I understand the
> anger and frustration that underlies your posts.  And I guess I need to
> remind you that I am not making the rules.  We don't have a clear, precise
> mandate to create an At-Large with a pre-determined role in ICANN's
decision
> making structure.  We don't even know what ICANN's decision making
structure
> is going to be at the end of the year.  On top of that, ICANN currently
has
> no money to spend on At-Large and I have a couple months to help get
> At-Large organizing underway.
>
> What we have is an opportunity with no guarantees.  An opportunity to take
> the challenge of creating bottom-up, self-organized Internet structures
(or
> using some existing organizations that are willing to fill this role) that
> can engage in outreach and education, involve users, aggregate views and
> make decisions, and work with other ICANN stakeholders to address issues
and
> develop positions on Internet user issues that fall within ICANN's
mission.
> If there are individuals and organizations that are willing to take up
this
> challenge, then I believe At-Large stands a much better chance of being
> designed into the "reformed ICANN" decision making structure.
>
> At-Large organizing in this context is a difficult endeavor, and I don't
> have all the answers at my fingertips.  Rest assured, though, that I will
> seek and listen to input of anyone interested in At-Large, and the public
> will be kept apprised of my organizing efforts. I need a few more days to
> think through processes and issues and to set-up a website, announce-list,
> etc.  Thanks for your patience and support.
>
> Denise
>
> Denise Michel
> dmichel@atlargestudy.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <dmichel@atlargestudy.org>
> Cc: <forum@atlargestudy.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 8:28 PM
> Subject: a few questions
>
>
> > Denise,
> >
> > ... a few questions.  perhaps you can offer some clarification regarding
> the
> > terminologies being used.  What, for example, are At-Large "mechanisms"
> that
> > requires "nurturing"?  Whatever they are, how are they different from
> > At-Large "structures", and what exactly do you mean by "structures"?
Are
> > these entities that will be offered participation, but not
representation,
> in
> > the ICANN process?  Whatever happened to either the membership
> organization
> > or the supporting organization concept as a single umbrella "structure"
> > (singular, not plural) that allowed for representation?  In your
outreach
> are
> > you telling these folks that a structure will be in place that will
allow
> for
> > their representation?  Are they being advised that that they will have
> > directors on the Board actually representing their interests?  What, in
> fact,
> > are you telling the folks with whom you are in contact?  Are you
> indicating
> > that ICANN seeks to establish regional organizations as contemplated in
> the
> > ALSC plan?  Are you representing yourself as a member of ICANN staff
when
> you
> > communicate with these parties?  If ICANN isn't paying your salary, then
> from
> > where do you derive your authority to engage in these activities?  What,
> > exactly, will the At-Large Organizing Committee that you are hosting
> actually
> > organize?  Is this new focus on structures (plural) a fancy way of
> indicating
> > that you seek to decentralize the At-Large?  Why do "structures"
(plural)
> > need to be created when there are a multitude of user organizations
> already
> > out there that have their own self-sustaining and open structures
already
> in
> > place?
> >
> > ALM I could understand.  ALSO I could comprehend.  "Mechanisms" and a
> > multitude of "structures" baffles me.  Could we try some plain English
> please?
>
>
>