[ALAC] [Fwd: Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities]
Sorry
This didn't go to the list, so resending
JAM
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
> Hi Patrick
> One very important thing to note is that individual internet users are
> different from individuals acting as businesses, academia, etc. My
> role as an academic at work is very different from my personal
> internet user life - my concerns are different. As an individual, I
> may have an Internet-related business. So my concerns may align in
> that role with the Business constituency, and not with the individual
> internet user. So I think the definition of individual internet users
> needs to be really well crafted to separate it from the concept of an
> individual in other roles. And if we get that done, then there's no
> discussion left as to whether we can have individuals, groups,
> organisations etc as At Large members. Or individual academics as NCUC
> members etc. For example, my University may not be interested in
> joining NCUC as an institution (that's a lot of paperwork etc) but
> they may be perfectly willing to pay for my professional membership in
> NCUC if my academic interest (research etc) coincided.
> Jacqueline
>
> Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
>> I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with
>> other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be
>> the only entity to represent individual internet users.
>>
>> The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments
>> welcome.
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>> 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different
>> groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these
>> groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the
>> only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other
>> issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC
>> members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up.
>>
>> 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community.
>> The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold.
>> The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly
>> identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There
>> is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these
>> groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to
>> the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if
>> the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context.
>>
>>
>> On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical
>> issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the
>> policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account
>> that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work.
>>
>>
>> Relationship with other ICANN entities
>>
>> 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and
>> concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes
>>
>> 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of
>> the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN
>> entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice
>>
>> 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be
>> strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and
>> within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
>>
>>
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
