[ga] Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto and all,

  Consensus cannot be accurately determined without a
vote of all interested participation members.  Secondly,
why is this only now being given consideration?  Isn't
such a consideration only about 6 years past due?  Why also
is the GA not being given such consideration?

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Beau,
>
> So, I assume that you would be happy to have a constituency in the GNSO,
> like the Business Constituency, and only two people in the NomCom. Of
> course, no Liaison to the Board, at that point. That would match exactly the
> power of the BC.
>
> Is that the consensus?
>
> Thanks,
> Roberto
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: Brendler, Beau [mailto:Brenbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2008 09:48
> To: Roberto Gaetano; Jacqueline Morris; alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> ttcs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [At-Large] Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2
>
> In my opinion, if we don't get what we are asking for, there is not much
> point in having an ALAC. In answer to your question, I would rate the
> "power" of the individual users compared to the "power" of the business
> constituency, registrars, etc., as about a 1 compared to a 10.
>
> Beau Brendler
>
>   _____
>
> From: alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: Thu 2/14/2008 12:48 PM
> To: 'Jacqueline Morris'; alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ttcs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2
>
> I have a question.
> How would you rate the "power" of the individual users (via the ALAC) in the
> ICANN process compared, for instance, to the "power" of business users (via
> the Business Constituency)? Considering that the ICANN model is a
> multistakeholder model, where different stakeholder groups participate on
> equal footing, comparable stakeholder groups are supposed to have similar
> rights.
>
> I believe that, also considering the different reviews (GNSO, NomCom and
> ALAC) ongoing, you might better be careful in what you ask for, because you
> might get it.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > Jacqueline Morris
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2008 21:35
> > To: alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ttcs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2
> >
> > Fyi
> > Please comment.
> > Jacqueline
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@xxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:20:14 +0430
> > Subject: [ALAC-Internal] alac jpa draft 2
> > To: ALAC internal list <alac-internal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Dear folks,
> >
> > Here, the draft by the present drafting group members:
> > Annette, Beau, Wolf
> >
> > we stayed in the taj palace and come over to dinner now! ;-)
> >
> > see you soon
> >
> > best greetings
> >
> > annette
> >
> >
> >
> > Proposed ALAC-statement regarding JPA:
> >
> > As the JPA (between the US Government and ICANN) is under
> > Review, ALAC wishes to underline the unique opportunity the
> > occasion offers to realize the original goals that led to the
> > formation of ICANN. These include, inter alia,
> > acknowledgement of the international nature of ICANN, support
> > of the multi-stakeholder bottom-up approach to the management
> > of ICANN, and the provision of viable and stable channels for
> > the involvement of individual Internet users in the ICANN
> > policy formation process. Measures must be implemented to
> > ensure non-discriminatory availability of ICANN/IANA services
> > as well as the opportunity for the involvement of global
> > individual users in the ICANN process.
> >
> > In its role as the voice of the individual Internet users,
> > ALAC firmly believes that the current multi-stakeholder
> > framework at ICANN should be further strengthened to allow
> > more effective involvement of end-users. The process to full
> > participation of individual users through the ALAC and its
> > Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) is being undertaken
> > at this moment. There is, however, a lack of incentives for
> > the participants, especially a lack of direct involvement at
> > the decision-making levels of ICANN. Therefore,
> >
> > we believe ICANN should consider mechanisms for stronger user
> > participation, such as At-Large voting rights on the GNSO
> > council and the ICANN board.
> >
> > Alternative for the last sentence:
> >
> > [we think that ICANN should find ways to implement adequate
> > representation of individual users at the decision-making
> > levels of ICANN so that a real multi-stakeholder framework is
> > achieved.]
> >
> > In addition, we believe no government should have a
> > pre-eminent role in DNS management and exercise power over
> > database changes and root-server data. We suggest that an
> > institutional form should be found as soon as possible so
> > that ICANN does not lie under the authority of any single
> > national legislation. We also strongly advocate transparency
> > and openness in the process of making any structural change
> > in the ICANN framework for the coming transition.
> >
> >
> > We are concerned that the successor oversight framework is
> > still not clear and ICANN needs to clarify the transitional
> > arrangements with regard to accountability and transparency
> > as well as to allow further definition and evolution of the
> > multi-stakeholder model of governance under which it operates.
> >
> > We need to know what replaces the JPA, which refers to "the
> > global participation of all stakeholders" and "mechanisms for
> > involvement of those affected by the ICANN policies." As the
> > Internet-using public is a key set of stakeholders affected
> > by ICANN's policies, it is critical, including for Internet
> > security and stability, that the organization be accountable
> > to the public and account effectively for its input.
> >
> >
> > Respectfully submitted,
> >
> >
> >
> > Chair
> >
> > At-Large Advisory Committee
> >
> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> >
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                   Name: winmail.dat
>    winmail.dat    Type: application/ms-tnef
>               Encoding: base64
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org