Evan, I have no intention of listing elimination as simply one of many options. I will clearly indicate that one region formally and strongly stated this, as well as a few ALAC members. LA has said that they support the elimination of DT, but did take any position on methodology. And a few Committee members have agreed that the focus should be on the AGP. Most have been silent which by our conventions implies support of the document. As John Levine pointed out, we may have to settle for other measures (supported by Izumi) and as Danny has clearly stated, we should not cop out and leave the policy development to others. If there is a chance that other mechanisms may be adopted, we should have input into them. Although there has been some very strong statements from NA, there has not been the same outcry from other regions and I will try to represent the entire picture. If the ALAC disagrees, they will say so. Alan At 04/12/2007 10:28 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
So far as I can tell, every single bit of feedback received has regarded the elimination of the AGP, with only the severity of the need to eliminate it varying between the comments.
I look forward to the revisions to the ALAC submission, which reflect the At-Large community's overwhelmingly clear assertion that the AGP is determined to be harmful to the public good. It is a mockery of this stance to simply list elimination of the AGP as one of a number of recommended options. It must be made clear that partial measures such as surcharges are only stopgaps along the path to halting the practice altogether.
I would remind the ALAC that it is a collector, not a framer, of public opinion. You asked for input and you got it. If the overwhelming public sentiment is ignored or downplayed in the official At-Large position, don't complain when future calls for public input get similarly ignored. Not every issue will have public opinion so clearly aligned; if ALAC can't get THIS one right, future issues will be even harder to tackle.
As we all know ALAC is under extremely close scrutiny, by ICANN but also by public groups and participants, many of whom believe that this whole At-Large creation is a placating gesture and a waste of time. It is a corruption of ALAC's purpose to factor objections from other constituencies into its own positions; our paramount goal is to determine the public good and to assert that public good -- undiluted -- into the ICANN ecosystem. It won't happen overnight... but if it is done meekly and apologetically it won't happen at all.
Given the immense cynicism that hangs over ALAC from all circles, perhaps some opportunities present themselves in which the taking of a principled stand, and forcefully getting behind it, is more important than milquetoast diplomacy. I suggest that this is one of those opportunities.
Maybe it's about time that ALAC stopped claiming to protect the public good and started actually doing it. Here's a chance on a platter to do so.
- Evan