Since I’m in the
knowledge business, I know that knowing what you don’t 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.
[Spanish
Version]
Desde que estoy en el
negocio
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.
From: lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
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