Thankyou to those who replied to this thread, every one of which outlined my point more effectively than I could hope to. I complained that the effectiveness of ALAC to do its job in a useful and professional manner is damaged by personal attacks and unhelpful responses. The response was personal attacks and unhelpful responses. Other major flaws in allowing a mailing list that is supposed to develop consensus on important policy topics that affect Internet users include: * Misstatements of fact (e.g. this is not the first time I have posted to this list - far from it). In a normal environment, this approach would be heavily discouraged, even punished, since it leads to confusion and a waste of valuable time. * The use of emotive catch-all phrases in order to avoid discussing the real issue (e.g. the grossly over-used notion of "censorship"). Do you accuse parliaments, senates, and all other representative organs of censorship because they do not allow anyone at all the opportunity to turn up and say whatever they wish (again using up valuable time and resources)? * Wild accusation with no basis in fact (e.g. the suggestion that I am in position to shut down mailing lists). * Aggressive defence of the indefensible (e.g. "100 emails is nothing". In fact, 100 emails could easily lead to improved relations and development of consensus, rather than the opposite effect of crowding out discussion). Every decision-making organ in the history of the world has relied on the use of representatives to put forward the views of a large number of people. That larger group of people then seek to persuade the representatives of their point and ask them to enter it into discussions. In the most effective form of accountability and representativeness so far - democracy - those representatives are voted in, and can be voted out in periodic elections. This is the model that ALAC follows - or should be following - if it is to provide useful policy input. My suggestion was that there exist a publicly visible mailing list for ALAC committee members to which only they are able to post. This is a mailing list that would enable the representatives of Internet users to discuss policy among themselves. It would provoke more thoughtful and productive work and also provide transparency to the wider community - who would be in a position to approach representatives on particular points and seek to persuade them of their view. That is a mailing list that I would subscribe to and read with pleasure. This on the other hand is a mailing list dominated by a few frequent posters who appear to regard argument and baiting as a more valuable use of their - and everyone else's - time than real, substantive consensus building on important policy topics. That these posts then complain that no serious consensus building is achieved on a list that is so heavily disrupted by their frequent outbursts, is the greatest irony. I now expect this post to be misrepresented in a series of personal attacks and unhelpful responses, complete with misstatements of fact, use of emotive catch-all phrases, wild accusation with no basis in fact, and aggressive defence of the indefensible. If people wish to have a discussion about the nature of participation within ICANN processes, I am open to that. My opening question would be: when there are over billion people online and millions of domain name holders: is a system where interaction on the main At Large mailing list is limited to the same 20 voices an example of effective participation? If not, what can be done to make it more involving? Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:38 AM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] Give it a break Judging from the past 100 emails, I would say the most effective thing that ALAC could do is set up a publicly visible mailing list that only Committee members could post to. And then shut down all the others. I don't find too many people in the other ACs and SOs dedicating most of their time to: a) Attacking one another, and b) Throwing out haphazard plans for complete reorganization of ICANN on a whim Surely ALAC can agree on some standards for acceptable posting? If the complaint is that ALAC doesn't produce enough in terms of serious policy input into ICANN's processes then the explanation has been the past few days on this mailing list. Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org