[governance] Drop ALAC altogether??

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Sat Dec 1 13:02:19 EST 2007 

Jacky:
You're talking apples and oranges, or perhaps fish and bicycles. 

The NCUC has a clear and simple focus: we represent noncommercial organizations. ALAC is supposed to represent anyone and everyone, including commercial actors and potentially commercial organizations. So, you can't merge NCUC and ALAC without completely destroying the balance of constituencies in the GNSO and undermining the nature of NCUC.

Under the proposed structure of ICANN's GNSO, there will be 4 constituency groupings: registries, registrars (both domain name supplier interests); and commercial and noncommercial users. 

It is relatively easy for the NGOs and public interest groups focused on human rights in a "noncommercial users constituency" to come to an agreement on policy. Likewise it is relatively easy for registries and registrars to determine what their interests are and to represent a policy perspective. But if ALAC was as broadly representative of "individual internet users" as it is supposed to be, it would be very difficult for them to represent a point of view, because individual internet users in the aggregate don't have a common point of view. As I recall, you don't even think users in North America or Asia can adequately understand or represent users in the Caribbean. 

In general, the At Large's attempt to be the home for individual internet users cannot be confused with a "constituency" structure in which the groupings are balanced and presumed to be made up on relatively homogeneous groups with a common outlook on or interest in policy issues.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 11:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Vittorio Bertola'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether??
> 
> Why suggest dropping the broad focus and keeping the narrow? To me it
> would
> make more sense to do the opposite. So in that case, how about dropping
> the
> NCUC as the ALAC is broader-based, and those who want to focus on gTLD
> issues in the GNSO can, but we won't be restricted? Or making the NCUC a
> sub-group of At Large, for those who want to focus on GNSO issues?
> Jacqueline
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 22:38
> > To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether??
> >
> > Vittorio stated
> >
> > >A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups
> > >have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some
> > >perhaps in both). That might make more sense.
> >
> > I remain unconvinced at the necessity for both an ALAC and a NCUC in a
> > sensible and efficient structure for channeling what might effectively
> > be
> > called relevant civil society input to a names and numbers
> > organisation.
> >
> > Alx added
> >
> > >the NCUC (originally non-commercial domain-name holders, which we
> > later
> > >expanded to represent non-commercial interest in generic domain names)
> > is
> > >focused on generic domain names, whereas the ALAC covers all that
> > ICANN
> > >does and may attract the general user, i.e. not only generic names but
> > also
> > >ccTLD names, IP addresses, etc.
> >
> > Historically relevant because of the forces at play and the insistence
> > of
> > Esther Dyson, but in a greenfields situation would you ever come up
> > with a
> > structure like that? I don't see great differentiation between those
> > interest areas and those likely to want to be involved.
> >
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> > Sent: 01 December 2007 13:12
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Drop ALAC altogether??
> >
> > Ian Peter ha scritto:
> > > Sorry to raise yet another heresy,
> > >
> > > But why have ALAC at all when we have Non Commercial Users
> > Constituency
> > and
> > > a Business Users Constituency? Don’t they cover all users who would
> > get
> > > involved in ALAC?
> > >
> > > I understand the historical reasons for ALAC, but if we are analyzing
> > > structure (rather than power bases we wish to maintain) why have an
> > ALAC
> > and
> > > a NCUC?
> >
> > In addition to what Jacqueline already said, the viewpoint/interest of
> > the average Internet user and the viewpoint/interest of the academic
> > and
> > NGO groups that make up the NCUC (and a good share of the ALSes as
> > well)
> > do not always coincide. In issues such as Whois, for example, we had in
> > the At Large several people from consumer organizations and technical
> > groups pushing for positions that are completely opposite to those of
> > the NCUC and of the civil rights organizations, e.g. advocating full
> > disclosure and authentication of whoever is behind a website, including
> > individuals.
> >
> > A different question might be why do academic and civil rights groups
> > have to be split, part in the NCUC and part in the ALAC (and some
> > perhaps in both). That might make more sense.
> > --
> > vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> > -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date:
> > 30/11/2007
> > 12:12
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date:
> > 30/11/2007
> > 12:12
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date:
> > 11/30/2007 21:26
> >
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date:
> 11/30/2007
> 21:26
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date:
> 12/1/2007 12:05 PM
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: 12/1/2007 12:05 PM
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

More information about the Governance mailing list