Danny and all, I agree fully. Further the document that was attached is in a format that is conducive to transmitting malware and spyware. And further still, it largely does not reflect the actual Internet community where users are by far the largest segment, yet have no predominant or for that matter ANY direct voice, and no vote on issues or process. Whomever drafted this document is demonstrating clearly a lack of experience, knowledge, knowledge in history of the formation of ICANN, the principals of the MOU, and a decided incoherence of the current reality of policy determination and subsequent implementation as well as oversight and compliance of same and existing policy which has been repeatedly abused by registries and registrars predominantly at the expense of users and registrants alike. -----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Sent: Apr 23, 2008 6:02 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
Evan,
The ALAC has participated in a joint statement without any consultative engagement with its own membership; such behavior should not be countenanced -- the final Statement is posted here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html
regards, Danny
--- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a document being drafted on a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some sort of "public" representation that has come up with some very strange conclusions. Here is an early draft of the document:
http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20Refor...
A more recent version of the draft has essentially gutted ALAC's role and calls for some sort of direct participation by ALSs. The truly amazing thing is that this is being advanced as having the support of ALAC itself!
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html
Compounding the problem is that the closing of public comments is this week -- and the fact that the document is still in flux!! How can "the public" adequately address a moving target in this manner?
Frankly, not only the document but the process that has produced it is flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now heard from Beau and Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC list -- why is it being debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact with me). I am asking one or more of you to help craft a NARALO position that we can submit this week. I will do my best to help but I will likely be incapacitated for most of the rest of this week because of surgery.
Both the document (at least in its current form) and the process that developed it IMO should not be submitted as something with widespread -- let alone universal -- public support. Can some folks here please get together to draft something upon which NARALO can get a consensus statement and submit before the deadline?
Thanks!
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________ 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://atlarge.icann.org