Sorry Danny. please, when you inform about something, try to inform yourself first. this group was wich made a GNSO improvement`s document from ALAC, but not wich made a last joint document with other constituencies neither negotiate secretly nothing. In fact, your atitude make me feel very upset. I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you personally in the next meeting. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:19:54 -0700> From: dannyyounger@yahoo.com> To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested> > The Ad-Hoc GNSO Improvements Statement Drafting Group> is composed of:> > C Aguirre (LACRALO) > A Greenberg (NARALO) > C Langdon-Orr (APRALO/ALAC Chair), > V Cretu (EURALO) > M El Bashir (AFRALO), and > V Scartezini (LACRALO/Vice Chair)> > These are the people that Staff tells us secretly> negotiated a deal with the BC, IPC, ISP and NCUC> constituencies. > > ... and this WG, of course, has no public archives.> > Although we were promised at the ALAC Monthly> teleconference that a community organizational model > would be presented for public discussion to the> At-Large community on 15 April or 16 April, we were> never shown that model; it remained a secret until the> "Joint Statement" was posted this morning.> > Other groups honored a commitment to their members and> made the model available for constituency discussion> as early as late March (IPC), April 10 (BC), April 15> (ISP).> > The ALAC WG members apparently had no such regard for> their own community. > > Making matters worse, the position that they agreed to> is a far cry from the Draft Statement that the WG> circulated on 21 March. > > -- What happened to their initial focus on individual> internet users as a distinct voting bloc? > -- What happened to their proposal regarding domain> name resellers? > -- What happened to the belief that "At-Large is in> the process of being reviewed and to suggest any> changes to the structure of the community as it> presently exists could prejudice the outcome of the> review"?> -- What happened to the sentiment that "We do not have> in mind a particular voting structure for involvement> of the Internet endusers voice, but are open to any> proposal that provides for participation on an> equitable basis"?> > What happened to all the public comments that were> sent through on the topic of GNSO Improvements? Were> any of them even read by WG members? > > I recall JFC's proposal regarding consumer> organizations and Roberto Gaetano's push for> participation of the individual registrants in the> GNSO. I recall Ross Rader arguing against the> arbitrary commercial/non-commercial distinction. I> recall Beau Brendler passionately arguing with Roberto> about the need to extend representation to all users. > > We see none of that in the Joint Statement. > > Call me a cynic, but I don't believe for a moment that> WG members were actively involved in sustained> negotiations with the other constituencies... the> members of this WG can't even manage a sustained> discussion on this list, let alone between four> different constituencies.> > This event strikes me as an action taken independently> and arrogantly by the ALAC Chair. > > But this is just speculation on my part, and like> Brett I'm waiting to hear the truth of this matter> from those that collaborated on the Joint Statement.> > I would love to know why our public input into this> process has thus far been ignored or cast aside by the> ALAC leadership. I would like to know why we weren't> privy to the documentary text at the same time as> other constituencies. I would like to know if this is> how the ALAC intends to behave in the future. I would> like to know when the ALAC will begin respecting the> need for a comment period of suitable length.> > Final comments to the ICANN Board Governance Committee> are due on Friday. There has already been one formal> extension to the comment period, and there has been no> formal request for a further extension of time. The> ALAC shouldn't be putting its ALSs in this> one-day-to-prepare-comments-position. This is the> epitome of irresponsible behavior.> > > --- At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote:> > > Dear All:> > > > As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO> > Improvements, with> > representatives of each RALO, has been working on a> > response > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> Be a better friend, newshound, and > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> > _______________________________________________> 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 _________________________________________________________________ Ingresá ya a MSN en Concierto y disfrutá los recitales en vivo de tus artistas favoritos. http://msninconcert.msn.com/music/archive/es-la/archive.aspx