Danny and Robert, I understand your ideas, and I really agree that quantity doesn´t guarantee quality. I also agree with Danny that the process has been a failure since 2002 and for a few years. But I´d had the opportunity to watch the new process in LAC, gathering a really important and quite representative number of organizations in the subject, and being related to indivual user´s interest, which is one of ALAC proposals, and wasnt happennig until now. Since then, at least in our region, it is growing a different way. Perhaps, the failure is not in the "What", but in the "How". The recomendations you are making reference allow me to think like this, and I It is early to critizise the RALO´s process, because only one RALO (LAC) has been properly consolidated two months ago, and the others are in the way. I think you would be surprised in a few months. Despite being a member of a non profit organization, and a researcher, I also work in the bussinnes world and I know the importance of efficiency, but I think we have to make some difference. When we are taking executive desitions, the procedures are not the same that if your goal has is to create consensus. Precisely, this process only would be able to grow with results if it is based in the idea of a powerfull and representative organization. Moreover, ICANN has being spending time and money since a long time, and now that we are close to get a result, I would be pointless to abandon the efforts. It´s been a pleasure to discuss ideas respectfully, Regards, Andrés
Dear Andres,
Thank you for your comments.
The ALAC was officially created in December 2002. We have been pursuing this experiment for four long years during which time the DNS policy-related contributions offered by the ALS organizations has been almost nil. By any set of metrics, that is an undeniable failure.
Within ICANN we have the ability to recognize and deal with failed efforts -- as an example, we have seen the earlier DNSO (widely regarded as dsyfunctional in the extreme) replaced by the GNSO.
I view the ALAC/RALO/ALS construct as a monumental failure that cannot be saved by the expenditure of additional funding or time.
Clearly, you don't share my point of view on this matter.
Let me ask you this: if you were a businessman that had to make a business decision based on the performance record to date, would you invest in this proposition in view of the return generated thus far? Probably not.
Most likely you would seek to restructure/reorganize or find a more suitable model. ICANN has already spent a great deal of time and money seeking a reasonable solution. They commissioned the At-Large Study to provide the Board with recommendations that could enjoy consensus support. This is what they recommended:
"The ALSC recommends the creation of an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO) as vital to At-Large participation in ICANN. The existing ICANN structure has not fulfilled expectations of directly involving and representing individual Internet users and their interests.")
I don't want a powerless ALAC model that offers no hope of representation on the ICANN Board. I want our community to have the benefit of a Supporting Organization model that seats its members on the ICANN Board... I can't imagine that you would prefer to remain powerless and unrepresented?
regards, Danny
--- Andres Piazza <investigaciones@densi.com.ar> wrote:
Dear Danny,
First of all, I`d like to say that we share your concern about making real and effective contributions to Icann and specially to the areas that, as you said, require improvements. Despite this, I respectfully disagree with your opinions. The ALS process has a huge importance in the Internet Policy Development (and should be like this in every other political aspect). Moreover, the idea of Botton Up Consensus-Based Process is one of the strongers in ICANN, and also one of the main goals of ALAC: To provide the broad advice, and be related to the individual user´s interests.
The job of being instruments for the individuals users, to provide their empowerment, to lend they know, to poll them to get involved and commited first, and to do their contributions later on, is quite tough. I agree that, at this time, ALS didn´t offer the gratest recomendations, but it is a long path to travel and (at least in the LACRALO), I can see a great commitment in the ALS´s members, and also a remarkable job in the some areas. It s too early to disdain the potencial of the individual users to contribute, and it is also very easy for you. ICANN, and specially ALAC, believes strongly in the construction of consensus, and in the participative leadership (it is quite different that being a cheerleader!!). I think you should start doing it too.
Please, dont get me wrong, I´m aware that you are making a great job on your own, but I am convinced that your organization (your are the only member in it) would be stronger and make better contributions to ICANN if you nourish it with other participants. I have no intentions to start a polemic, but I was forced to interfere because all At Large Community is reading this mailing list, and I couldn´t lend someone to believe that ALS are not capable to contribute.
Kind Regards,
Andres Piazza
** Andres Piazza** Research Director * AGEIA DENSI**.*** ** ********investigaciones@densi.com.ar <mailto:andresp@ip6technology.com.ar>**
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail