RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Vittorio wrote:
> 2/3 of the ALAC are going to be elected as soon as the RALOs will be
formed.

Karl replied:
>Which really doesn't mean anything.

Vittorio replied:
> I agree with your analysis, but Joanna's complaint was that the RALOs
> were not going to elect their representatives, and this is false.

Vittorio,
It doesn't matter whether the RALOs elect representatives or not, since
ICANN has already made sure it can hand pick the electorate and by the new
Bylaws, it can cut out individual users altogether. These Bylaws, far from
protecting the rights of individual users to participate in the At large,
are carefully crafted to put in place a structure that can be used to
exclude individual users altogether from the At Large. Look the facts,
starting with the newly published ALAC archive.
http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/:-

On Feb20th, Denise posted the draft Bylaws, a section of which states:-
(i) The ALAC is responsible for certifying organizations as
>        meeting the criteria and standards for At-Large Structures.
>        The criteria and standards for certification of At-Large
>        Structures within a each Geographic Region shall be
>        established by the Board and based on recommendations of the
>        ALAC, so that each RALO is afforded the type of structure
>        that best fits its Geographic Region's customs and
>        characteristics. Those criteria and standards shall be
>        stated in the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and
>        the RALO for that Geographic Region. They shall ensure that
>        At-Large Structures appropriately represent and involve
>        individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of
>        the RALO's geographical region. Decisions to certify or
>        de-certify an At-Large Structure as meeting the applicable
>        criteria and standards shall require a 2/3 vote of all the
>        members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according
>        to procedures the Board may establish. The ALAC may also
>        give advice as to whether a prospective At-Large Structure
>        meets the applicable criteria and standards.

On Feb 22, Esther said she thought the Denise's Bylaws changes looked fine.
http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00057.html

But three days later, on Feb 25th, the Bylaws that were officially adopted
used completely different language that had magically appeared, and had not
been approved by any due process that I can see, in the ALAC or anywhere
else. http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00072.html
http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appa-25feb03.htm

Language that appeared in the original draft is now missing from the adopted
version, including "They shall ensure that At-Large Structures appropriately
represent and involve individual Internet users who are citizens or
residents of the RALO's geographical region. "

Instead, we have this:- "If so provided by its Memorandum of Understanding
with ICANN, a RALO may also include individual Internet users who are
citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's Geographic Region."

By my reading, the phrase "If so provided" removes the obligation to include
individuals, meaning it is now left to the Board's discretion whether or not
individual users are included, and if not explicitly provided for,
individuals may well be left out. Furthermore, the phrase "shall insure" has
been switched to " may also include", which can also be read as "may not
include". There goes the user's rights to participate in the At Large with a
dissenting voice.

There is not even any comfort in the subsequent clause, "Each RALO's
Memorandum of Understanding shall also include provisions designed to allow,
to the greatest extent possible, every individual Internet user who is a
citizen of a country within the RALO's Geographic Region to participate in
at least one of the RALO's At-Large Structures." Does the phrase, "to the
greatest extent possible" sound familiar?  It should. This carries as much
weight as ICANN's now infamous commitment to operating in an open and
transparent manner, "to the maximum extent feasible", which as we all know,
has been shrouded in secrecy and back room dealing for years.

What can the ALAC do about this? Nothing, because it's authority has been
further diminished in the new version, whereby the original "The criteria
and standards for certification of At-Large Structures within a each
Geographic Region shall be established by the Board and based on
recommendations of the ALAC.....", have been amended to "Once the criteria
and standards have been established, (by the Board) the ALAC shall be
responsible for certifying organizations as meeting the criteria and
standards for At-Large Structures."

So, all in all, the RALO election process, which you have cited as if it is
meaningful in some way, actually looks something like this:-

+ ICANN Staff writes RALO MoU and passes to Board for approval
+ Board approves MoU and passes to the ALAC to implement
+ ALAC authorization is limited to approving Organizations willing to agree
ICANN MoU
+ RALOs may (or may not) include individual memberships
+ Approved Organizations elect representatives with (or without) individual
user participation

So essentially, ICANN Staff have ensured that any users that do not agree to
their requirements for the At large, can participate by...well... getting
lost, right?

Regards,
Joanna

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