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