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