Last comment on this topic. Did the ccTLDs choose to "work effectively in whatever structure they were afforded"? No, they did not. They seceded from the DNSO and formed their own Supporting Organization. They recognized that their community warranted having direct representation on the ICANN Board and they acted to make it so. By pursuing this ALAC/RALO/ALS nonsense instead of creating a situation where the user community has direct board-level representation, ALAC members are doing nothing more than serving to perpetuate the ongoing disenfranchisement of the user community. Cheryl, if the Board was listening to the ALAC, then I might understand your reticence to abandon an experiment gone bad, but there is no empirical evidence to be had to demonstrate that the Board pays any attention to ALAC remarks whatsoever. Just consider the last Statement that the ALAC sent through to the Public Comment forum on the Budget. ALAC asked for registrar level transaction fees to be applied to the Add Grace period so that domain tasting activities could be curtailed. Did anyone on the board even acknowledge the recommendation, or even bother to offer the courtesy of a response? Of course not, they just ratified the budget, allowed domain tasting to continue, and paid no attention to the ALAC recommendation -- by the way, the ALAC comment was the only public comment so it certainly wasn't overlooked by accident. The ALAC is a powerless and ignored artificial construct. I fail to understand why you strive to defend a tool that offers no practical utility. Follow the lead of the ccTLDs that acted in their own interest. Fight for the representation that you have been denied. At ICANN's inception the At-Large was promised seats on half of the ICANN Board, and now the ALAC willingly and meekly accepts zero seats -- you should all be ashamed. regards, Danny --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
Final from me on this matter (I hope) until we discuss these issues further (and indeed we should discuss them) in LA are, interspaced below...
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2007 10:15 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: GNSO working group
Cheryl,
Re: "But you can look backward and just identify our faults (and there are no doubt many) OR you can learn from them and improve..."
There is another option.
One can realisticly assess the ALAC and come to the self-evident conclusion that ALAC experiment in participation-instead-of-representation is an abject failure that should be terminated.
<CLO> You know we are going to have to agree to disagree here. At least at this point in time :-)
The ALAC has been given ample time to get their act together (five years). The ALAC has failed. Miserably.
Let this experiment end, and use your postive energies to launch a different experiment -- perhaps one that focuses on the representation to which we are entitled.
<CLO> I am of the opinion that, and I suspect many of my fellow 'newbie's' in the ALAC now here as a result of the new ALS and RALO appointment mechanisms may also agree, it is also more than valid to let this current FORM of the 'experiment' have a REAL chance to run its course, and then succeed or fail on the merits of its performance... This has not had the chance to happen - Though I certainly understand some of your frustrations and criticisms of past performances. It is also my observation that criticism is always plentiful it is actions to make changes for the better that we so often lack.
All ALSs can be encouraged to join their fellow non-commercial organizations in the NCUC, so no real harm will be occasioned by the demise of the ALAC.
<CLO> I agree that if an ALS sees the NCUC as an opportunity for their input into ICANN process and policy development, they indeed should join that constituency, as well as a RALO and I would certainly encourage them to do so to widen their input opportunities if nothing else.
I'd suggest going back to the recommendations of the At-Large Study Committee (ALSC), creating an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO) and seating directors on the ICANN Board -- if you recall, that was their consensus-based recommendation (that the ALAC didn't have the guts to pursue).
<CLO> yes I remember those recommendations quite well, as to why they did not gain acceptance at that time? Well several theories are easy to come up with, but I believe we need to work effectively in whatever structure we are afforded and we need to give ALAC the chance to try and do that.
Perhaps you will have the courage to do the right thing.
<CLO> my courage has little to do with it, it's the At-Large Community that needs a voice and it is it, via ALAC or otherwise, that needs to find a way to make itself best heard... And indeed listened to...
I look forward to seeing you in LA and indeed to getting some WG policy input together before then...
CLO
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC