First - it isn't "my" model, as I wasn't involved when it was formed - I came and met it, and ICANN said - this is how you get involved, so I did.

What's icannatlarge and how does one join it? I've not heard of it and it hasn't done any outreach in the english speaking Caribbean as far as I've seen. Similarly NCUC hasn't done any outreach to contact people in Trinidad and Tobago and invite them to participate  - ALAC has.

The TTCS of which I am a member never got any information from our "representation" at NCUC about ICANN or what's going on. We didn't get invited to ICANN meetings, or have travel assistance (vital when a good salary here is the equivalent of US$1000/month - we can't afford to pay the exorbitant sums to travel all over the world to participate) or even email contact. So it seems to me that we are truly AtLarge - we are not represented by, or considered by, any SO within ICANN. If NCUC is interested in being representative, then why not reach out to emerging Internet communities like the English speaking Caribbean?

BTW - the RALO formation was a major drawing card in my (sub) region. Can't say about Brasil, as I haven't lived there since 1990 and a lot has changed.

So I reiterate - it would be way more productive to put this energy towards information on and discussion of the issues that ICANN is supposed to deal with.

I do have to say -if the energy of the AtLarge is focused on organisational and historical issues and the proper allocation of ICANN resoures, I doubt that it will be attractive to me, or the organisation of which I am a part, or many of the other ALSes from the English speaking Caribbean that have recently joined.

Jacqueline

Quoting Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>:

> Re:  (1) why are new orgnaisations joining the current
> flawed model
>
> Probably because no one within ICANN has made an
> effort to make it clear to these organizations that
> their natural home should be the NCUC.
>
> Re:  (2)  why haven't the many people who feel the
> current model is unworkable done what you suggest and
> vote with thier feet?
>
> They have voted.  Over a thousand individuals joined
> icannatlarge instead of supporting the ALAC
> initiative.
>
> Further, within LAC 50 new organizations have been
> added to the NCUC roster within the last month (a
> check from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
> for $2500 to cover 50 applications was forwarded to
> Milton Mueller by Marcelo Fernandes Costa).
>
> Jacqueline,
> At issue is the very definition of at-large
> membership.
>
> ICANN's Membership Advisory Committee posed this
> question:  Who should be included in the at-large
> membership?
> MAC consensus:  All individuals and organizations that
> are not represented by Supporting Organizations are
> eligible to become at-large members without regard to
> the nature of their interest as long as they have
> e-mail contact.
>
> The organizations that you are trying to turn into
> at-large units already have representation within
> ICANN via a Supporting Organization constituency
> established for that purpose.  The real At-Large will
> always be those that are not otherwise represented.
>
> Your ALAC model is not aggregating individual at-large
> members, instead it is serving to do no more than to
> divert organizational resources away from the NCUC.
> This is not constructive -- it divides resources.
> It's a very bad mistake that hurts your peers.
>
> best wishes,
> Danny
>
>
>
> --- jam@jacquelinemorris.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>    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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
>


--
Jacqueline A. Morris
www.jacquelinemorris.com