Some brief comments / observation are interspaced below... -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:18 PM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested [ massive cross-postings stripped out ] Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
I do not think it appropriate that I comment on discussions that then ran on the NARALO list per se (as I believe the autonomy of RALO debate is essential) Cheryl, as you know you were explicitly Cc'd on those discussions. The intent was specifically to attract your input. <CLO> Attention got most certainly but my input needed to occur to the Public list when the documents discussed were available for all to read in a final format... And I maintain that it is inappropriate for me to comment on a NARALO issue of dissent from a document draft prepared but not distributed.
but I would like to make clear my extreme personal disappointment that the NARALO (or at least some members thereof) feel that they were not being adequately included or represented Is your regret that we were not being adequately informed, or just that we feel that way?
in the development phase (pre release before the for comment period) of the Joint Statement by their representative on the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG Alan Greenberg;
This is inaccurate. Alan, for all the admirable work he has done in this effort, is NOT our representative. He was never elected by NARALO to ALAC, and as a NomComm appointee bears _zero_ accountability to us. He is from this region but not responsible to it. Thus, to refer to Alan as a "NARALO representative" of any kind is misleading. <CLO> Thank you for this clarification and information we will note this now in all future ALAC work and look forward to effective representation from those that you have duly authorized and support in the future.
I further trust that the hard work put in by this NARALO ALAC representative is not being either unappreciated or ignored by his region (or interpreted that way by others) as a result of that lists deliberations... It is not a statement of disrespect or unappreciation for his effort to be disappointed with the end result. I am extremely hesitant to personalize this issue, since the contents of the document are what is to be presented to the Board with the approval of all of ALAC. It is particularly distressing to see ALSs and RALOs mentioned in the document without their would-be roles discussed with them in advance of the final document.
<CLO> RALO's and ALS's were specifically mentioned in the document as a clear mechanism to show what had been expressed in comments to the ALAC statement and in many other for a and discussions as the need to User voice being included... I assume it is not the NARALO desire to not see ALS's or organisations and individuals able to have direct input? We certainly assumed that they did desire inclusion.
Certainly we need to note that at this stage we have no similar issues regarding the Joint Statement coming in from the other RALO's whose WG reps I should make very clear also worked in a very hard in positive and committed manner to be broadly representative of their Regions views... As I said, I am aware that discussions of this nature are always difficult. It is especially distressing, given the amount of work put in, that the results are so unsatisfactory and not at all representative of our region's views.
<CLO> noted and the mechanism for the NARALO specific views has been outlined elsewhere, and you have specified your plans below...
The Chair of NARALO has called (I believe) for an Ad-Hoc regional committee to be formed to draft an opposing document...
This belief is mistaken. I have not called for a special committee to draft a full opposing document-- we don't have time for that. All our ALS and individual members are being asked to give comment to multiple response statements that have been put forward, all of which seek to disassociate NARALO from the Joint Statement. The intent is to reach a NARALO-wide consensus response before the comment period deadline.
I also hope they will place specific points into the current comment collection and collation process, via the Wiki and I assume that the outcome of this regional committee will be very specific in listing where the NARALO's views are at variance or opposition to the Joint Statement.
We will do what we can, given the extremely severe time restraints imposed on us by the authors and the deadline. So far the mailing list and Skype chat have served us well and will have to suffice. If ALAC representatives in this process had wanted a broader, more deliberate and detailed response, giving us more than three days to do it would have been a Really Good Idea.
We should also take the time here to reflect There is a deadline approaching that requires action; time to reflect is a luxury that has not been afforded us. In any case, I take issue that the alternative is "mutually agreeable" because, from our perspective, it clearly is not based on input from multiple NARALO members. Reaction has ranged from outrage to ridicule. Indeed, ALAC's very capacity to act as advocate for the At-Large community has been repeatedly called into question as a result of this process.
<CLO> please note that as with all public comment on ICANN policy interested individuals, ALS's, and RALO's per se, are encouraged to put in individual comment/ responses... These documents are notates as ALAC ones, and we will do our best to be reflective of the widest possible input we receive but they do not in any way limit NARALO or and other 'entity' within or outside of what we class as At-Large responding under separate cover... - CLO... Please note here in Australia we are about to begin a national public holiday which has in fact created a 3 day weekend any delay in future response from me in the next few day will be related to that... However I believe the NARALO point of view has been well established and continuing in an adversarial manner is unlikely to bring any resolution or benefit to either of us... - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org