Since Im in the knowledge business, I know that knowing what you dont know and having a notion of how to begin to know is very important. For those of us who would wish to make a meaningful contribution to Internet governance which I believe we signal when we form, join and seek accreditation for an ALS - we will have to read A LOT. The ICANN announcements at www.icann.org/announcements are always THE place to start. The multistakeholder approach assumes and commends the hive mind approach to policy development. It is the reason we develop these lists so that folks can see what other like-minded individuals are thinking on any issue; joining is VOLUNTARY. And crosstalk in this sense is actually of use. Nobody promised it would be orderly or even edifying in every way. This is why when I get more than one email on the same subject, I simply read and keep one and delete all others. This will suffice until we get our lists all smoothly integrated and whatnot. Yes, from observation it would appear that the administrative issues yes, some of it really is administrivia! - dominate the conversations. But I submit this is entirely reasonable, given the maturity of the expansion of ICANN policy development framework in general and LACRALO in particular. Teething pains, I say. And this too shall pass. All in all, we work the game we have with the players that show up. Carlton [Spanish Version] Desde que estoy en el negocio del conocimiento, yo sé que instruido lo que usted no sabe y estar que inclinado a de cómo comenzar a saber es muy importante. Para los que desearía hacer una contribución significativa al gobierno del Internet que creo que señalamos cuando formamos, unimos y buscamos la acreditación para un ALS - tendremos que leer MUCHO. Los anuncios de ICANN en www.icann.org/announcments son siempre el lugar de empezar. El enfoque de multistakeholder asume y encomienda el enfoque de la "mente de la colmena" al desarrollo de la política. Es la razón nosotros desarrollamos estas listas para que gente puedan ver lo que otros individuos afines piensan en cualquier asunto; la unión es VOLUNTARIA. Y la interferencia en este sentido es realmente de uso. Nadie prometió que estaría ordenado o edificando aún en todos los aspectos. De ahí que cuando consigo más de un correo electrónico en el mismo sujeto, yo leí simplemente y mantengo uno y borro todos otros. Esto será suficiente hasta que consigamos nuestras listas todo lisamente integrado y el juguetero. ¡Sí, de la observación aparecería que los asuntos administrativos sí, algún de ello es realmente administrivia! - domina las conversaciones. Pero yo me someto esto es enteramente razonable, dada la madurez de la expansión de armazón de desarrollo de política de ICANN en general y LACRALO en el detalle. Endenteciendo los dolores, yo digo. Y este pasará también. Todo en total, nosotros trabajamos el juego que tenemos con los jugadores que aparecen. Carlton _____ From: lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of jam@jacquelinemorris.com Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:01 AM To: Danny Younger Cc: Jeanette@mercury.uwimona.edu.jm; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Hofmann Subject: Re: [LAC-ALS] [ALAC] [NA-ALS] [EURO-ALS] Major Milestone Coming Up Hi Danny I have questions - if the current model is flawed and many people consider it so, then why are new orgnaisations joining the current flawed model and why haven't the many people who feel the current model is unworkable done what you suggest and vote with thier feet? This isn't the first time I've heard about the SO initiative, but I haven't seen any movement forward on it, but I have seen a lot of activity in LAC (my region). I've also seen a lot of desire in LAC for policy discussion. Maybe we should do an experiment - start a good policy discussion on a topic of interest, and see how much traffic we get, compared to admin issues. The LAC email listing hasn't been so big on admin issues, but more a lot of questions about issues and how we could find out more about them, and how they might affect us. The regional model allows us to interact and network as well, which is very valuable to us in LAC, I think. Jacqueline Quoting Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>:
Re: "Maybe if a policy issue disucssion were started, we'd get this sort of participation now that we have so many more ALSes?"
Jacqueline,
Just speaking from my experience, having witnessed the formational efforts of the IDNO (Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency) and those of the icannatlarge group, I can tell you that most participants will choose to focus on administrative considerations rather than on policy matters.
They would rather argue the merits of weighted voting moreso than discuss the lack of competitive choice offered under current Redemption Grace Period policy. They would rather pontificate on the topic of Internet Governance than deal with the hard issues associated with UDRP reform. They would rather debate the nuances of membership criteria and the relative fairness of proposed membership fee structures than discuss registrar circumvention of the Consensus Deletes Policy.
They will spend years building an institution that devotes 100% of its time to administrative minutia and will forever continue to postpone policy discussions because they never seem to finish their higher priority organizational work... and then the institution collapses as little by little the players realize that nothing of consequence is getting done. I've seen it happen. Twice. and this will surely be round three if we remain on the same track.
In the meantime, others within the GNSO are formulating policy (while the at-large remains excluded from this venue as well as from from the ICANN Board itself).
There was a time when the country code managers realized that the construct that they were forced to work within (the DNSO) was not serving their needs. They left an unworkable model and created their own Supporting Organization...
The construct that ICANN has forced upon the at-large clearly does not meet our needs. We too should vote with our feet and put together that which is right for us -- a Supporting Organization effort wherein policy issues can properly be debated. That model already exists and has worked reasonably well. We don't need to reinvent the wheel and get locked into administrative and process-related debates; further, we don't need to accept the flawed ALAC/RALO construct just because it is the only option on the table.
We should be pursuing that which is right for us, a Supporting Organization that allows for Board-level representation, rather than blithely accepting what amounts to an incredibly lousy deal.
We have gone from the promise of directors on half of the Board to no directors on the Board whatsoever. This is not acceptable. It will never be acceptable and I will never buy into a plan such as the ALAC/RALO/ALS diversion that makes permanent our disenfranchisement.
best wishes, Danny
____________________________________________________________________________ ________
Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com