[governance] Drop ALAC altogether??

Mon Dec 3 10:44:50 EST 2007

Milton, two questions :

- when you say "non-commercial users" in NCUC, do you still mean
"non-commercial domain owners" or "general internet users" ?
- regarding constituencies, you mention their supposed "relatively
homogeneous interests" (or something like it). Does that mean that you
consider constituencies within ICANN as being a way to structure interest
groups ? And does not this lead to the "siloed" approach that I have often
described as one of the major limitations in ICANN's PDP (in the gNSO in
particular, hence the proposal to move to a working group model) ?

Best

Bertrand

On Dec 1, 2007 7:02 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
> 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
>

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle

Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071203/00aa0d74/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071203/00aa0d74/attachment.txt>