As I share with some, ( due the fact I still member of BGC WG hence my opinion brings some conflict) my point is - since we believe users shall be represented at GNSO, we need to answer the question: does this representation should be done by ALAC or by the "undefined" entity registrants? Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Danny Younger Enviada em: terça-feira, 8 de abril de 2008 08:25 Para: wendy@seltzer.com Cc: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: [At-Large] Comments on GNSO improvements Wendy, I agree with your assessment that this Statement completely lacks substance. It offers no specific counter-proposals to the BGC work-product. As a document, it is almost as useless as the ALAC itself. What value is there in declaring "we do believe that the Internet end-user’s voice must be included in the new GNSO" without formulating a means by which this may be accomplished? ... and then there are the comments that make one want to vomit, such as, "Since as mentioned the At-Large community has been actively engaged in developing and implementing new approaches to a working group modality for policy development, some of the experiences we have had in that process may prove salutary." The ALAC is absolutely clueless when it comes to running a working group, and their WGs have been abject failures -- asking the GNSO to consider ALAC achievements in this area is laughable and makes the ALAC look like fools and simpletons. I'm starting to think that whoever penned this Statement is living in some alternate universe where reality rarely intrudes. If you ever needed proof that ALAC serves "no continuing purpose in the ICANN structure", this Statement would go a long way toward making that case. The Board is looking for real solutions to deal with issues that have been plaguing the GNSO since the days of the DNSO. This Statement offers up no real solutions. The best thing that one can say about this Statement is that if it were printed on toilet paper it might ultimately serve some useful purpose. ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com _______________________________________________ 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