[Chapter-delegates] [?? Probable Spam] [SEEKING VIEWS] ISOC contribution to ICANNdocument on Affirmation Reviews

Sun Jan 31 15:37:04 PST 2010

Louis,

re RALOs, a more-intense participation by all of us is surely needed!

The community has made achievements, large and small, and more is needed. 
These days the discussion is going around the mechanisms for electing a 
Director of ICANN by the ALAC. We must make sure that chapters see 
eye-to-eye, or know our differences if they are not reconcilable.

Further we have to contribute to design a process and then, more 
importantly, define candidates, that ensure that we will not start a new 
cycle of a clique investing itself with a spurious public-interest cloak 
and perpetuating its blockage of representation, as has happened largely 
in the Non-Commercial constituency for many years.

The same mechanisms that were applied to exclude ISOC chapters there, and 
only accept them back in rather inappropriate conditions, must not be 
repeated.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732

* Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
* LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
* Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
* Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

* Ven a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org.mx, ISOC http://www.isoc.org
*Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Louis Houle wrote:

> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:18:19 -0500
> From: Louis Houle <Louis.Houle at oricom.ca>
> To: Bill Graham <graham at isoc.org>
> Cc: Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>,
>     ISOC Chapter Support <chapter-support at isoc.org>,
>     Executive Team <exec-team at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] [?? Probable Spam] [SEEKING VIEWS] ISOC
>     contribution to ICANNdocument on Affirmation Reviews
> 
> Bill,
>
> I know it's late but I wanted to let you know that I share your views.
>
> Related to transparency and decision-making process, I would suggest that 
> more room could be made in the processes (and obviously more funding) for the 
> RALOS. The rationale being that they represent the end user with a voice that 
> carries their concerns. I would also suggest that ISOC and ISOC Chapters 
> should be supported in participating to RALOs activities and meetings.
>
> Louis Houle
> ISOC Québec
>
> Bill Graham a écrit :
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I've carefully gone through the ICANN document "Affirmation Reviews: 
>> Requirements and Implementation Processes," released 26/12/09, and 
>> available here: 
>> <http://icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev>.  I 
>> believe it would be appropriate and helpful for ISOC to comment on it.  It 
>> is really 2 documents in 1.  The first part is a broad proposal for 
>> carrying out the reviews called for in the Affirmation of Commitments 
>> between ICANN and the US government.  The 2nd part is the draft terms of 
>> reference for the first review called for by the Affirmation of 
>> Commitments: that is, a review of ICANN's accountability, transparency and 
>> decision-making processes, that is to be done by year end.
>> 
>> Comments are due by the end of January, meaning I will have to complete and 
>> send the document on January 29.  Because time is short, I thought I would 
>> outline what I recommend ISOC would say here, and seek your views on a 
>> couple of questions.
>> 
>> The paper raises several questions for me, mostly related to the terms of 
>> reference for the first review.  A primary issue is that I don't think that 
>> the paper is clear about what the review is targeting.  The proposed terms 
>> of reference does not suggest how they are going to define or to develop 
>> definitions of accountability and transparency, or of the "public 
>> interest."  I had the impression during the Seoul meeting that work is 
>> needed within the organization to formulate a clear understanding of what 
>> is meant by the "public interest," and I believe that some clear 
>> definitional work is essential if the review process is to help ICANN 
>> continue its positive development.  As it is treated in the consultation 
>> document, "public interest" could be seen as similar to "client 
>> satisfaction."  From an ISOC perspective, that is much too narrow a 
>> conception, because it misses the concept of ICANN's stewardship role over 
>> a vital and shared global resource.  While the stakeholders and 
>> participants in ICANN processes are the ones to be involved in the reviews, 
>> they must look always at what is best for the Internet and for the broad 
>> community of Internet users world wide.  One other comment making a similar 
>> point has already been made 
>> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/affrev-draft-processes/>, and that is the 
>> major message I recommend ISOC make in its comments.
>> 
>> In addition, because I trained and worked as an evaluation professional for 
>> several years, I would propose to offer some technical/methodological 
>> suggestions that I believe will be helpful, but because they are 
>> mechanical, I won't go into them here.
>> 
>> In particular, I would appreciate hearing from you what elements you think 
>> need to be included in definitions of accountability and transparency.  It 
>> would also be helpful to have your comments on the proposed composition of 
>> the review teams.  ICANN's paper is proposing that the teams be kept small 
>> and composed of "representatives" of various ACs and SOs.  From your 
>> experience, do you think this is achievable?  Is it practical to have 
>> representatives from large and diverse groups who can accurately represent 
>> the community's interests and views.  Do you agree with the recommended 
>> approaches to carrying out the studies?
>> 
>> I would appreciate it if you share your remarks by end of your day, January 
>> 27 at the latest.  Earlier responses would be much appreciated.
>> 
>> And of course, I'd appreciate seeing a copy of any detailed comments you 
>> may make directly to ICANN.
>> 
>> best regards
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> ========================
>> Bill Graham
>> Global Strategic Engagement
>> The Internet Society
>> graham at isoc.org
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>