On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:15:13 +0100, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
I don't want to look like the old guy saying "I told you so", but I told you all since when this GNSO restructuring process began that by pushing for the ALAC to have a direct role in the GNSO, you are shooting yourselves in the foot and possibly also in the head.
Vittorio, This is why I pleaded (not loud enough maybe) that the ALAC should indeed be the sole group representing the individual users within ICANN and that no other group should claim to represent them. The GNSO user house will only contribute to blur the picture, and especially since it seems any 5 people could show up at a meeting and claim to become a constituency within the GNSO user house. My main concern is how can these people claim to represent anyone beyond themselves. And if they only represent themselves, how important is their opinion ? The net effect if that the opinion of the individual end users within the GNSO will be considered irrelevant. This is why we need a strong(er) ALAC. There is more to ICANN than just the GNSO, but the current mood is to focus on the gTLDs and everything attached to it: new gtlds, RAA, whois, etc, while other issues are pushed aside. Coming from a region where the gTLDs are anecdotical compared to the ccTLDs, I indeed find too much attention and energy is invested by the At-Large on the gTLD issues, but I understand it may nevertheless be a concern for other regions. Needless to say, I disagree with Sheppard's GNSO-centric view of ICANN.
It's a good thing that you fall in love with the GNSO, and a kiss doesn't harm, but please be sure that she doesn't have HIV or the resulting activities might end with your death.
I like the analogy ;-) Patrick