On 23 January 2014 00:13, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as plain English as it continues to evolve. However, when someone uses an expression that others may not be familiar with, we simply inquire. In fact when we live in a global diverse context, we are all the more richer when we learn about "others'" systems and cultures etc.
Well said. +1 My own analysis of the situation is that the ALAC was "set up to fail", through creation of an objection process that appears outwardly to consider the public interest, but finds ways within the culture and the minutiae to maintain the status quo and keep us silenced. Having the Board empower the ALAC to advance objections, while also enabling the adjudicator to dismiss us based on lack of standing, can now be seen in hindsight to have been a hopeless venture. It swallowed hundreds of person-hours into a good-faith effort that was doomed to fail BY DESIGN. This is not the first instance of such a occurrence. I would now also categorize the gTLD Applicant Support program in the same manner. To the extent that these processes deceived members of the At-Large community to make massive personal investments into a path that utterly failed us, I might agree that the term "cheated" (or at least "fooled") was indeed appropriate. Now, hindsight is fine, but is useless if it does not offer us any lessons. Going forward, I see the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) regime following this same path of futility that we have seen before. After initially supporting the concept of PICs, now that I see how they are to be implemented I come to follow Carlton's sage references to their not being worth a "warm bucket of spit" (Sorry, Alejandro), and will refrain from further work on them as being an utter waste of time. - Evan