Re: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN
Perhaps we should ask Robin to amend the document to read: In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that some members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that in particular "the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction." Helpful? Thanks, Adam
A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. An example is http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-part.... According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC.
Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and misleading. It reads:
----------------- Myth 6
"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society drafted charter." False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that "the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction." -----------------
This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal (verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the de-linking of seats was a good thing.
In fact, the statement that they were quoting (http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) said:
"Some members feel that although there are some problems with the proposal, it generally addresses their concerns, and in particular, the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction. Problems notwithstanding, the proposal should receive Board approval."
"Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and not the ALAC in general.
I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing.
Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
Adam Peake wrote:
Perhaps we should ask Robin to amend the document to read:
In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that some members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that in particular "the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction."
Helpful?
In my opinion, not really, given the unfortunately poisoned atmosphere. Asking for a change that *reduces* the appearance of support for the NCUC position (going from "many" to "some") might be more accurate, but it's the last thing they want to hear. - Evan
If we feel the ALAC/At Large's position has been misrepresented, it should be corrected. Suggest it would be a waste of time to do anything more. Adam At 3:35 PM -0400 8/25/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Adam Peake wrote:
Perhaps we should ask Robin to amend the document to read:
In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that some members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that in particular "the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction."
Helpful?
In my opinion, not really, given the unfortunately poisoned atmosphere.
Asking for a change that *reduces* the appearance of support for the NCUC position (going from "many" to "some") might be more accurate, but it's the last thing they want to hear.
- Evan
participants (2)
-
Adam Peake -
Evan Leibovitch