[governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?

[Jacqueline A. Morris]

I'm way confused by the reasoning here...

How does ALAC (an administrative group of 10 people "representing" others
(voted by the RALOS) and 5 put in by NomCom to "represent" the global
balance ) have an oversight function towards the USG? I don't recall this
anywhere in the bylaws, the RALO MoUs, anywhere.

ALAC is (if you read the MoUs with the regions) required to do what the
RALOs want. If the RALO doesn't want it, then ALAC isn't required to do
anything. The ALAC may come up with something and send it down to the
regions and say - hey - this is interesting and we think it might be
something that At Large might want to weigh in on... 
Is this what you think should have happened for this US issue? 

Given that it was raised by a USan to the NARALO, which didn't choose to
take it up as a cause, is that a failure of the system? Or showing the
strength of the system? 

Maybe if the issue were well described and people could see how it affected
them, there might have been interest.

" Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - We had a
*Responsibility*  and failed "
What does the failure of this list (not affiliated to ICANN in any way
officially, far less At Large) have to do with the AtLarge structure being a
failure or ALAC being a failure?

I am still very very confused and not sure at all what point you are trying
to get across. 
Sorry
Jacqueline 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:14
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: RE: Re: [governance] What happened at the
> NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?
> 
> The Process:
> Jacqueline,
> My point(and more importantly Danny's at that moment) was the 'Process'
> of
> bottom-up was not being implemented, and as the counter balance too the
> 'Process' of top-down, there was no 'contest' to which it (Neustar
> technologies) was subject to.
> 
> Hummm, think of it as a new-drug, the FDA just approved without
> any Independent Laboratorys approval. Now the drug's on the market
> and come to find out, there are some horrible consequences
> (it was FDA rubber stamped).
> 
> In our instance the FDA is the NTIA and the Drug Company is Neustar,
> the Pharmacies are the Telcos.
> 
> Icann's ALAC had an 'oversite' duty & function and they failed
> (for whatever reasons, I don't mean to point fingers / ad-hominem)
> This list is the  - Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility -
> We had a *Responsibility*  and failed.
> 
> And the Cynics will say, that it was run-through with a new-process,
> which real is the old-process of big-business getting what it wants.
> 
> So,
> It is imperative that we strike a 'balance' with 'the-process-of-
> development'
> to instill 'Responsibility'. I don't care how its imitated, bottom-up
> or
> top-down.
> 
> I feel we need to find something new.
> Something that works, We failed the People, thats it period.
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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: 269.16.13/1169 - Release Date:
> 12/3/2007 22:56
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1169 - Release Date: 12/3/2007
22:56
 

____________________________________________________________
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