[ga] The ICANN game

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
> Experience has taught us, time and again, that "productive dialog" is only
productive for
> ICANN and its "processes."
>The time for charitable interpretation is long since past.
>
> J

Agreed : anyone who thinks the ICANN Board's conduct and agenda should be
interpreted charitably is simply agreeing to play with them at their own
game on their own terms. Get this straight: the ICANN Board has its own
self-interested agenda and it will create layer upon layer of "reasonable
discourses" and "consultations" to protect itself from genuine challenge and
accountability.

That's their game. That's exactly how you play it. On their terms.

That way you can only lose, which is the point of the game.

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----

To: 'Lawrence Solum' <Lawrence.Solum@lls.edu>
Cc: 'James Love' <james.love@cptech.org>; 'Esther Dyson'
<edyson@edventure.com>; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos' <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>;
'Denise Michel ALSC' <dmichel@atlargestudy.org>;
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; 'ALOC' <aloc@at-large.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 6:23 PM
Subject: RE: RE: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0


> > My point, to which Judith Oppenheimer did not respond, is
> > that we ought
> > to employ the principle of charity in interpreting the
> > contributions of
> > others to the list.  That is the route to productive dialog.
>
> With all due respect, this is not an academic exercise on "the route to
> productive dialog", it is political gamesmanship - ICANN "business as
> usual."
>
> Most of us who have spent years around "the ICANN processes" (which Ms.
> Dyson is a card-carrying member of) began our participation engaged in
> "productive dialog" (myself as member of Working Group B.)  Experience has
> taught us, time and again, that "productive dialog" is only productive for
> ICANN and its "processes."
>
> The time for charitable interpretation is long since past.
>
> J
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ----------
> Judith Oppenheimer
> http://JudithOppenheimer.com
> http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
> http://WhoSells800.com
> 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ----------
> Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ----------
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lawrence Solum [mailto:Lawrence.Solum@lls.edu]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 12:29 PM
> > To: Judith Oppenheimer
> > Cc: 'James Love'; 'Esther Dyson'; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos';
> > 'Denise Michel
> > ALSC'; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de; 'ALOC'
> > Subject: Re: RE: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> >
> >
> > I respectfully disagree.  The so-called main draft should not
> > be viewed
> > as being the subject of dissent, in the sense of "assent"
> > or "approval."  Esther Dyson can correct me if I am wrong,
> > but I do not
> > believe she was implying that the document should be viewed as having
> > the approval or assent of anyone other than the drafters.
> > Silence does
> > not imply assent, and hence the term "dissent" is simply
> > inapplicable.
> > To say otherwise is simply to misunderstand the grammer of
> > the concept
> > of dissent.  The appropriate term would be "disagree," and in
> > context,
> > that seems obviously to be Esther's meaning.
> >
> > My point, to which Judith Oppenheimer did not respond, is
> > that we ought
> > to employ the principle of charity in interpreting the
> > contributions of
> > others to the list.  That is the route to productive dialog.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
> > Date: Sunday, July 28, 2002 8:53 am
> > Subject: RE: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> >
> > > Let's not play semantics games.
> > >
> > > Particularly in context of this process as well as the thread below,
> > > "dis·sent - To withhold assent or approval" is right on target.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --------
> > > ----------
> > > Judith Oppenheimer
> > > http://JudithOppenheimer.com
> > > http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
> > > http://WhoSells800.com
> > > 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --------
> > > ----------
> > > Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --------
> > > ----------
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Lawrence Solum [mailto:Lawrence.Solum@lls.edu]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 7:15 PM
> > > > To: James Love
> > > > Cc: Esther Dyson; Sotiris Sotiropoulos; Denise Michel ALSC;
> > > > atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de; ALOC
> > > > Subject: Re: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think Jamie is overinterpreting the word "dissenting," which
> > > is, in
> > > > context, most naturally read as referring to "other"
> > opinions.  The
> > > > main document doesn't claim to represent the "majority" or
> > > "official"> view of the at-large community as a whole.
> > > >
> > > > There is no substantive disagreement here, and Esther's
> > > > original point
> > > > is on target.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org>
> > > > Date: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:20 pm
> > > > Subject: Re: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> > > >
> > > > > How do you determine if a view is the main recommendation or in
> > > > > the
> > > > > "dissenting" opinion?  Do you have authority to just decide what
> > > > > goes in the
> > > > > report by yourself, or is there some process that is followed to
> > > > > determine
> > > > > what the "at-large" types really think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jamie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Esther Dyson wrote:
> > > > > > at the point when any document is posted or forwarded
> > formally,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > should definitely note the existence of dissenting opinions,
> > > > > with links
> > > > > > to the various member groups' dissenting statements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Esther
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At 06:21 AM 7/26/2002, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Denise Michel ALSC wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I must correct your inaccuracies, Hans.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I am, along with the other members of the ERC
> > > > "assistance group,"
> > > > > >> > responsible for crafting a substantive draft ALAC proposal.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > "Version 3.0" is *not* "a team product of the
> > ALOC" and does
> > > > > *not*>> > "represent the consensus of the ALOC."
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >   -  I wrote the outline as a starting point for
> > discussion;
> > > > > >> >   -  an overwhelming majority of ALOC members have not
> > > > > commented on the
> > > > > >> > text, let alone "approved" it;
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> That's because we DO NOT APROVE!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You and E. Dyson are simply railroading your version of the
> > > > > proposal
> > > > > >> through
> > > > > >> without consideration for the REALITY of the consensus among
> > > > > the ALOC
> > > > > >> which
> > > > > >> Hans' Draft 3.0 rightly points out.  The patsies you list as
> > > > > part of
> > > > > >> your latest
> > > > > >> cabal are predictably handpicked.  ICANNAtLarge.com MUST
> > > NOT be
> > > > > listed
> > > > > >> as any
> > > > > >> kind of support for whatever document you produce
> > and sbmit to
> > > > > the ERC.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > > > >>         ICANNAtLarge.com
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >   -  I expressed my disapproval to your additions;
> > > > > >> >   -  the text simply represents a starting point for
> > > > > discussions to
> > > > > >> which a
> > > > > >> > majority of assistance group members have not yet had a
> > > > > chance to
> > > > > >> contribute
> > > > > >> > on ALAC issues.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The assistance group is not "replacing the ALOC as
> > the voice
> > > > > of the
> > > > > >> user" as
> > > > > >> > you melodramatically suggested.  It's a temporary
> > group that
> > > > > will
> > > > > >> draft a
> > > > > >> > proposal for an ALAC for ERC/public consideration.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Denise
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Denise Michel
> > > > > >> > coordinator@at-large.org
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> > From: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> > > > > >> > To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > > >> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:49 AM
> > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Denise works with us to facilitate our processes.
> > > > > Substantive work
> > > > > >> is the
> > > > > >> > responsibility of the ALOC members.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Version 3.0 is a team product of the ALOC and enjoys the
> > > > > support of
> > > > > >> > numerous ALOC members.  Indeed, I don't recall any
> > > > > expressions of
> > > > > >> > disapproval. I believe it represents the consensus of the
> > > ALOC.> > >> >
> > > > > >> > If I interpret Denise's comments correctly, the
> > newly created
> > > > > "ERC>> > assistance group" (from which Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > and I
> > > > > were excluded)
> > > > > >> > will soon replace the ALOC as the "voice of the
> > user."  Sigh!
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Hans
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > At 09:34 AM 7/25/2002 -0700, Denise Michel ALSC wrote:
> > > > > >> > >This is *not* the "latest version" or "Version 3.0" or a
> > > > > "Proposed
> > > > > >> Final
> > > > > >> > >Draft" of the "At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
> > > > > >> > >Submission to the..ERC..On the Design of An At Large
> > > > > Advisory
> > > > > >> Committee
> > > > > >> > >(ALAC)."  Hans Klein added these titles, along with a
> > > > > "Preamble"
> > > > > >> and "Part
> > > > > >> > >I" to an *outline of approaches/issues* that needed to be
> > > > > >> considered by
> > > > > >> > >the ERC's "assistance group" in order to draft
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > >> details for
> > > > > >> > >an ALAC.  Any ideas this list's participants have
> > on how to
> > > > > >> structure an
> > > > > >> > >ALAC, of course, are welcome.  However, the point of this
> > > > > limited ERC
> > > > > >> > >assistance group is to quickly provide *detailed
> > > > > recommendations*
> > > > > >> on an
> > > > > >> > >ALAC for public (your) consideration.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >Hans may wish to slap some rhetoric on an outline and call
> > > > > it a
> > > > > >> potential
> > > > > >> > >implementation plan, but that does not make it
> > so. When the
> > > > > assistance>> > >group issues its submission to the ERC, it
> > > will be
> > > > > a detailed
> > > > > >> proposal for
> > > > > >> > >establishing an ALAC on which anyone interested
> > can comment,
> > > > > >> change, build
> > > > > >> > >upon.  It will not be, nor is it intended to be, a
> > > > > reflection of
> > > > > >> the views
> > > > > >> > >of all ALOC member organizations or even all of the
> > > > ALOC members
> > > > > >> > themselves.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >Denise
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >Denise Michel
> > > > > >> > >coordinator@at-large.org
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> > >From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> > > > > >> > >Cc: "discuss" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > > >> > >Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:37 AM
> > > > > >> > >Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >Hans Klein wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Sotiris,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > The draft that you posted is out of date, I believe.
> > > > > There have
> > > > > >> been
> > > > > >> > three
> > > > > >> > > > revisions since then (2.0, 2.1, 3.0).
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > The biggest change was to add a "Part I" that restates
> > > > > the ALAC's
> > > > > >> > support
> > > > > >> > > > for election of At Large directors.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >Hans,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >Thanks for the heads up!  Apologies to all.  Below is the
> > > > > latest
> > > > > >> version.
> > > > > >> > >Comments are welcome and will be submitted.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >------
> > > > > >> > >VERSION 3.0 (Proposed Final Draft)
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
> > > > > >> > >Submission to the ICANN Evolution & Reform
> > Committee On the
> > > > > Design
> > > > > >> of An At
> > > > > >> > >Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >25 July 2002
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >PREAMBLE
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >The At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) was set
> > up by ICANN
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> guide and
> > > > > >> > >encourage bottom-up efforts to organize At-Large
> > mechanisms
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> meaningful,
> > > > > >> > >informed participation in ICANN.  The membership
> > list of the
> > > > > ALOC
> > > > > >> can be
> > > > > >> > seen
> > > > > >> > >at: http://www.at-large.org/at-large-members.htm
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >This interim report offers recommendations on the
> > > > > organization of
> > > > > >> an At
> > > > > >> > Large
> > > > > >> > >Advisory Committee (ALAC).
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >The ALOC finds itself faced with an inherent
> > contradiction,
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> therefore
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >ALOC comments are organized in two parts.  On the
> > one hand,
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> ALOC offers
> > > > > >> > >comments on how to implement certain features of the
> > > > > Evolution and
> > > > > >> Reform
> > > > > >> > >Committee's Blueprint for ICANN reform.
> > However, the ALOC
> > > > > does not
> > > > > >> > support
> > > > > >> > >all portions of that Blueprint, especially the elimination
> > > > > of the
> > > > > >> elected
> > > > > >> > At
> > > > > >> > >Large directors.  There is widespread support in the ICANN
> > > > > >> community for
> > > > > >> > >elected At Large Directors.  Pending final
> > resolution of the
> > > > > election>> > issue,
> > > > > >> > >however, the ALOC offers advice on what the Evolution and
> > > > > Reform
> > > > > >> Committee
> > > > > >> > >should do and how it should operate
> > > > > >> > >within ICANN now.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >With ICANN's authority over the DNS up for review and
> > > > > renewal in
> > > > > >> September
> > > > > >> > >2002, we hope that a way can be found to preserve the
> > > > > >> representation of
> > > > > >> > users.
> > > > > >> > >User representation will ensure a foundation of legitimacy
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> ICANN to
> > > > > >> > enable
> > > > > >> > >it to survive and prosper as an institution.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >We urge the ERC and ICANN to proceed on these issues
> > > along a
> > > > > >> timetable that
> > > > > >> > >permits sufficient time for the At-Large Structures within
> > > > > ALOC to
> > > > > >> engage
> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > >genuine deliberation with their constituencies on these
> > > > > important
> > > > > >> issues.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >PART I
> > > > > >> > >SUPPORT FOR THE TERMS OF INTERNET PRIVATIZATION
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >The At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) supports the
> > > > > original
> > > > > >> terms of
> > > > > >> > >Internet privatization, most notably the principle of
> > > balanced> > >> > representation
> > > > > >> > >of users and industry experts on the ICANN board.
> >  The ALOC
> > > > > also
> > > > > >> supports
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >implementation mechanisms developed for At Large
> > users, most
> > > > > >> notably the
> > > > > >> > >direct
> > > > > >> > >elections of directors.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >This support has been articulated in numerous documents,
> > > > > including:>> > >? Esther Dyson's letter of 6 November
> > 1998 to the
> > > > > US Dept. of
> > > > > >> Commerce on
> > > > > >> > >behalf of the ICANN board.  That letter noted
> > that the ICANN
> > > > > Board
> > > > > >> has an
> > > > > >> > >unconditional mandate to create a membership
> > structure that
> > > > > will
> > > > > >> elect nine
> > > > > >> > At
> > > > > >> > >Large Directors.
> > > > > >> (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/ICANN111098.htm)
> > > > > >> > >? The NGO and Academic ICANN Study, which concluded that
> > > > > ICANN should
> > > > > >> > retain
> > > > > >> > >balanced representation of users and industry
> > experts on its
> > > > > board and
> > > > > >> > should
> > > > > >> > >continue to employ global elections.
> > > > > (http://www.naisproject.org/)>> > >? ICANN's At Large Study
> > > > > Commission, which found that ICANN's policies
> > > > > >> > affect
> > > > > >> > >users and that users should be elected to the ICANN board.
> > > > > >> > >(http://www.atlargestudy.org/)
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >The ALOC therefore prefers that ICANN not implement the
> > > > > >> recommendations in
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >ERC Blueprint and instead work to implement the
> > > conditions of
> > > > > >> > privatization.
> > > > > >> > >Only an ICANN whose legitimacy is beyond dispute can
> > > work in
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> long run.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >PART II
> > > > > >> > >WORKING WITHIN THE ERC BLUEPRINT
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >Whether the ERC blueprint will be the basis for a
> > new ICANN
> > > > > will
> > > > > >> not be
> > > > > >> > known
> > > > > >> > >before the end of this year.  Despite the
> > reservations about
> > > > > that>> > >Blueprint, we
> > > > > >> > >offer here some suggestions about how its terms might be
> > > > > implemented.>> > >
> > > > > >> > >1. Background
> > > > > >> > >a. Need for At-Large: ICANN needs a mechanism for
> > individual
> > > > > users'>> > >participation in ICANN.  This provides a formalized
> > > > > role in the policy
> > > > > >> > >development process for users that ensures that user views
> > > > > are
> > > > > >> seriously
> > > > > >> > taken
> > > > > >> > >into account.
> > > > > >> > >2. Role and Responsibilities
> > > > > >> > >a. ALAC is a standing advisory committee of the Board
> > > > > >> > >b. Provides advice and guidance to the Board and to other
> > > > > >> organizations
> > > > > >> > within
> > > > > >> > >ICANN on the needs of, and the impact of proposed policies
> > > > > on, the
> > > > > >> > Internet's
> > > > > >> > >individual users ­ addressing pending issues and
> > introducing
> > > > > new
> > > > > >> issues
> > > > > >> > >relevant to Internet issues and within ICANN's purview.
> > > > > >> > >c. Serves both as a resource for ICANN to pursue specific
> > > > > >> issues/questions
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > >solicit user information, and as a meeting point for
> > > > > individual
> > > > > >> Internet
> > > > > >> > users
> > > > > >> > >and their organizations.
> > > > > >> > >d. All ICANN policy-making entities will provide ALAC with
> > > > > appropriate>> > notice
> > > > > >> > >of upcoming and pending policy discussions and impending
> > > > > policy
> > > > > >> decisions
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > >ensure adequate opportunity for At-Large input
> > > > > >> > >e. Through At-Large Structures, ALAC will engage
> > in outreach
> > > > > to, and
> > > > > >> > education
> > > > > >> > >of, individual Internet users about ICANN/ICANN issues and
> > > > > will
> > > > > >> involve
> > > > > >> > users
> > > > > >> > >and their representatives in decision making,
> > > aggregation of
> > > > > >> > >views, and identification of relevant Internet user
> > > priorities> > >> > >f. ALAC will work with other ICANN
> > > stakeholders to address
> > > > > issues and
> > > > > >> > develop
> > > > > >> > >positions on relevant issues
> > > > > >> > >g. ALAC will use on-line mechanisms as focal points for
> > > > > discussions
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > >information dissemination, ensuring broad public access to
> > > > > ALAC
> > > > > >> activities
> > > > > >> > >h.
> > > > > >> > >3. Structure/Membership
> > > > > >> > >a. Should be structured so as to:
> > > > > >> > >i. Provide effective, broadly inclusive mechanism for
> > > > > involving and
> > > > > >> > >representing individual Internet users in ICANN's
> > policy and
> > > > > >> > decision-making
> > > > > >> > >activities
> > > > > >> > >ii. Demonstrate that the organizations of which
> > the ALAC is
> > > > > composed>> > actually
> > > > > >> > >do represent the populations they claim to represent.
> > > > > >> > >iii. Have membership that is geographically
> > diverse, and is
> > > > > selected>> > through a
> > > > > >> > >process which includes each At-Large Structure
> > (group) that
> > > > > meets
> > > > > >> specified
> > > > > >> > >criteria.
> > > > > >> > >4. Involvement w/ Board, other entities
> > > > > >> > >a. ALAC should have a liaison seat on the ICANN Board
> > > > > >> > >b. It should have liaisons to other ICANN policy-making
> > > > > bodies as
> > > > > >> > appropriate
> > > > > >> > >[To be defined.]
> > > > > >> > >c. Appointment of four delegates to the
> > Nominating Committee
> > > > > >> > >5. "At-Large Structures" Criteria ­ new or existing
> > > > > organizations
> > > > > >> that:
> > > > > >> > >a. Are open, participatory, and self-sustaining
> > > > > >> > >b. Engage in outreach to, and education of, individual
> > > > > Internet
> > > > > >> users about
> > > > > >> > >ICANN and ICANN issues
> > > > > >> > >c. Involve individual Internet users in policy and
> > > decision-
> > > > > making and
> > > > > >> > >activities related to involvement in ICANN, including
> > > > > soliciting
> > > > > >> opinions
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > >their members and having participatory mechanisms for the
> > > > > >> discussion and/or
> > > > > >> > >development of policies, aggregating views, and
> > identifying
> > > > > relevant>> > Internet
> > > > > >> > >user priorities concerning ICANN
> > > > > >> > >d. Maintain transparent and publicly accessible processes
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> input, policy
> > > > > >> > >development, and decision-making
> > > > > >> > >e. Post current information about the organization's aims,
> > > > > structure,>> > >membership, working mechanisms and current
> > > > leadership
> > > > > >> > >f. Are open for new individual members
> > > > > >> > >g. Are able to maintain themselves without
> > requiring funding
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> ICANN
> > > > > >> > >h. Are able to guarantee and demonstrate the real identity
> > > > > of their
> > > > > >> > >members and
> > > > > >> > >to provide the relevant anagraphical data in electronic
> > > form.> > >> > >6. At-Large Structure Designation/Development
> > > > > >> > >a. ICANN should post and distribute a call for At-Large
> > > > > Structures,>> > providing
> > > > > >> > >organizations with an appropriate period of time apply
> > > to be
> > > > > >> eligible to
> > > > > >> > >participate in the initial ALAC.
> > > > > >> > >b. Organizations fulfilling the criteria can
> > apply to become
> > > > > At-Large
> > > > > >> > >Structures at any time and participate in the ALAC as
> > > > > appropriate>> > (immediately
> > > > > >> > >or during next selection cycle depending on process).
> > > > > >> > >c. It will be the ALAC's responsibility:
> > > > > >> > >i. to alter or update the admission criteria for new
> > > > Structures;
> > > > > >> > >ii. to exclude from itself any Structure which, after
> > > > > appropriate>> > >verification,
> > > > > >> > >fails to meet the current criteria;
> > > > > >> > >iii. to state whether any prospective Structure meets the
> > > > > criteria and
> > > > > >> > >thus can
> > > > > >> > >be accepted in the process. Deliberations of type
> > i) and ii)
> > > > > require a
> > > > > >> > >majority
> > > > > >> > >vote of 2/3 of the ALAC.
> > > > > >> > >d. At Large Structures will not be required to fund
> > > ICANN or
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> costs of
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >ALAC, even if partially.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >7. ALAC Composition (options)
> > > > > >> > >a. (Variable membership) One member from each
> > > > At-Large Structure
> > > > > >> > >b. (Fixed membership) Fixed number from each region
> > > (ICANN has
> > > > > >> > traditionally
> > > > > >> > >addressed geographic diversity based on five
> > regions of the
> > > > > world)
> > > > > >> (the
> > > > > >> > >"Alexander plan")
> > > > > >> > >c. Fixed membership, half appointed and half elected.
> > > > > >> > >8. ALAC Funding and Staffing ALAC (options)
> > > > > >> > >a. The ALAC could be funded either by its
> > members, by ICANN,
> > > > > or by
> > > > > >> some
> > > > > >> > >combination of the two.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >###
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >2
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >---------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > > > --------
> > > > > >> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > > > > unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>> > >For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > > > -------
> > > > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > > > > unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > > > -------
> > > > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > > > > unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > > > -----
> > > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > > > > help@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> > > > > > chairman, EDventure Holdings
> > > > > > writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> > > > > > edyson@edventure.com
> > > > > > 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> > > > > > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> > > > > > New York, NY 10011 USA
> > > > > > http://www.edventure.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The conversation continues..... at
> > > > > > http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > > > ----
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > > unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > ------
> > > > > James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> > > > > http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
> > > > > voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > > > --
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > > help@lists.fitug.de> >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html