[Chapter-delegates] ISOC-NY discusses at-large membership of ICANN

[Sebastian Ricciardi]

Hi Joly,

I have been a member of ALAC until the LAC RALO was launched. During that
period, I have worked with several ISOC Chapters, including ours in
Argentina, to ensure a productive participation and a factual involvement in
the development of ICANN policies. Of course this – the development of
policies within ICANN – is only a part of the more general scope that many
ISOC chapter, and ISOC itself, have.

During the chapters meeting we have in Sao Paulo, we had the opportunity to
discuss this issue. ISOC Chapters´ participation in the ICANN At Large
Structure is a sensitive issue that should be carefully considered by each
of the chapters across the world. In this regards, Luc´s invitation and ISOC
NY proposed debate could produce a very interesting insight for other
chapters, the BoT and ISOC Staff. 

In this debate, imho, we should consider different aspects:

a. ISOC involvement in the At Large should be framed in a larger context,
which is the involvement of ISOC and its chapters across the world in the
development of Internet policies and regulations, as a part of the Public
Policy efforts we are committed with.

Naturally, in Public Policy activities, there are different opportunities
both for ISOC and its Chapters: while ISOC could be very effective in
communicating at high level with ICANN, the NRO, etc. (even the UN lately),
its chapters have more opportunities in local interactions, particularly
with governments. This is one of the advantages we have as a worldwide
organization: the opportunity to work at different levels.

In this line of thinking, chapter involvement in different ICANN
constituencies, i.e. the At Large, the Non Comercial Users Constituency –or
both- represent for all of us more opportunities than threads. Of course, we
should be well coordinated to ensure the primacy of ISOC core values in our
statements, opinions and involvement, since these are the fundamental
principles that guide the entire organization.

b. ISOC and ICANN are different organizations, with different roles, and
both have a significant role in the development of the Internet. Having
different roles, it is completely natural that many ISOC chapters choose to
not to participate in the development of ICANN policies, and focus in some
other important aspects of the Internet development instead, while some
other chapters may choose to have a high level of involvement with ICANN.

c. Regarding the ALAC and-or the NCUC, we might want to appreciate the
fundamental differences between them: NCUC is a regular constituency of the
Generic Name Supporting Organization, and as such it has a vote in the Names
Council, and a scope that is related to Domain Names and the development of
policies within the GNOS. On the other hand, the ALAC is an advisory
committee to the Board, and as such it has a Liaison to the Board
(non-voting) but a scope that is not limited to the DNS, but much broader.
At the same time, while the NCUC structure is quite simply, the ALAC has a
regional organization based approach, with its own merits and pitfalls.

Danny’s comments on the ALAC role and the ICANN reform should be also taken
in account: some people believe that we should not participate in the ALAC
as it would be some kind of recognition of an illegitimate situation. I
wonder how this would change by getting involved in the NCUC instead, but I
don’t want to start another argument here. On the other hand, some of us
believe that any change should be patiently and relentlessly driven from the
inside. Others gave ot a shot, got frustrated, and finally quit.

d. I know this is getting long, but would also like to address the actual
influence that ALAC has (or has not) in the ICANN process. We should
recognize that the ALAC has been dysfunctional in the last years. Its
members have a constant debate about the Committee’s priorities and goals,
and this situation was many times reflected on its results. Some other
times, ALAC statements were practically ignored by the Board. My personal
opinion is that the ICANN Board would take in account ALAC documents and
opinions if they were the result of a consultation among a wide community of
users, and not only the opinion of a few individuals. Many times our
discussions with Board members ended up in the necessity of deploy the
regional structures (RALOs) and start gathering opinions from a broad range
of organizations. In ICANN Bylaws, ALAC has few tools, but important ones:
The Committee has the power to start a Policy Development Process on the
GNSO – but cannot take part on it once it has been initiated -, and elect
five NomCom voting members. We also use to attend different constituencies
and cross constituencies meetings, and our travel expenses to ICANN meetings
were paid by ICANN. I am not analyzing here the merits of this situation,
but I do want to give you a complete insight of the situation.

e. Getting back to the beginning of this reasoning, I think that ISOC
Chapters should participate in any ICANN constituency or committee if they
believe that this would be a good way to fulfill ISOC mission and promote
our core values. The real questions here are not related to ICANN but to
ISOC itself: Would it be beneficial for ISOC and for the entire Internet
community if ISOC chapters get involved in the development of ICANN
policies? If so, should this effort be coordinated? How? Would these efforts
leverage ISOC´s leadership and recognition? IMHO, these are the questions we
should ask to ourselves.


Best regards,

Sebastian Ricciardi
VP ISOC Argentina Chapter

-----Mensaje original-----
De: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
[mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] En nombre de WWWhatsup
Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Marzo de 2007 11:30 p.m.
Para: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Asunto: [Chapter-delegates] ISOC-NY discusses at-large membership of ICANN


Recently Luc Flaubert of ISOC-Quebec has invited (North American) ISOC
chapters to consider joining
the At-Large Constituency of ICANN (ALC).  This has elicited arguments anti
and pro
from ISOC-NY members.

Danny Younger thinks that we should stick with our current membership of
the Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) .

Veni Markovski thinks that the ALC, with it's accent on representing the
end-user, is 
a natural fit for ISOC chapters.

Their comments can be viewed/listened to via the ISOC-NY wiki at
http://wwwhatsup.com/isoc-ny/ICANN_ALC 

Feedback/comments from other chapters is welcome - here or there.


Joly MacFie

http://isoc-ny.org

---------------------------------------------------------------
             WWWhatsup NYC
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------  


_______________________________________________
Chapter-delegates mailing list
Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates