Danny, I know your rants on the matter for years. IMHO they only translate your inability to propose something coherent to organise the ALAC for it to serve the urgent needs that ICANN has of them, and it does not properly (I agree with you) manage. The question is not to save one million, but to use that small million for the multi-billion worth advantage ICANN should get from ALAC to the benefit of the whole community. You do not realise it, but your competent comments on ICANN issues is one of the most dramatic problem of ICANN, because it gives credibility to such rants which in turn defeat the ICANN ALAC oriented interests. ICANN is a trade organisation, managing registrars and relating with ISPs. @large are lead customers. What you harass ICANN about is to disregard them. In this capacity, IMHO you harm ICANN through this list far more than ever Jeff did by at least two degrees of magnitude: you hit the core, and you are intelligent. Please try for once to think the other way around. Document how you would spend the ALAC million to the best advabntage of ICANN through @larges. As you started doing at the WG-Review a long ago. jfc At 19:56 08/04/2008, Danny Younger wrote:
Hello Carlos,
When I look at the ALAC I see a group of people that won't fight for at-large representation. I see a bunch of Working Groups wherein nothing gets done. I see a general discussion list where ALAC members from most of the regions usually have absolutely nothing to say on policy issues. I see a group yearly willing to waste a million dollars of registrant monies (and with their hand always out for even more funding).
If you recall, ICANN shut down the Protocol Supporting Organization because it had no continuing purpose as an ICANN structure. I see no continuing purpose in the ALAC.
The ALAC model is a failure that produces no substantive policy recommendations. In an evolutionary process, failures result in extinction. It's time for the ALAC to be replaced by a different model.
You asked for my proposals... they have been public for some time now -- see my proposal to establish a Registrant Advisory Committee at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01080.html
I have assembled a team of eighteen individuals that will be fleshing out this proposal. A domain name has been registered for the project -- registrantadvisorycommittee.info
Hosting was purchased yesterday. The website will be up in a matter of days and consultations will then commence.
In ICANN's history, representative bodies have been eliminated or replaced (one example is the DNSO General Assembly that disappeared as a representative unit in the wake of the 2002 Reform); I see no compelling reason to waste more money on a non-productive ALAC.
Have a look at the SSAC -- at least they produce substantive documents with research, findings and recommendations. What does the ALAC produce other than brief Statements that are the product of only a few minutes worth of discussion?
The ALAC doesn't serve the needs of the at-large community. It never has. It was built as a playpen to keep Civil Society occupied after At-Large representational rights were taken away.
No amount of reform will change an institution in which elected representatives rarely choose to contribute in an online environment and almost never choose to engage in meaningful policy work.
It is time for another model.
best regards, Danny
--- carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com> wrote:
Danny: When I met you in LA, I thought that you were the best. Now I can see my mistake. Your comments are not constructive, I'm sure your comments have been made with some intentionality. I'm thinking that may be you are an element used by others (I don't Know who) to disqualify the ALAC's work, or.... you bought the ideas of who try to delete ALAC of the map. I worry so much, the possibility that one smart guy, only be a .......... You can say this in a better way, making a critic, and maybe in some points we can find coincidences but..... It is not the first time that you say how much useless is ALAC and their members, but what are you proposals?. please tell the people what are your true intentions and how you can give solutions to this, could be clear, could be honest. thank's and sorry for my bad english. Me gustaria usted pudiera entender mi idioma, por que de esta manera estariamos en igual posicion de mantener esta discucion. Lamentablemente mi ingles no es perfecto y por lo que se Ud. solo habla su lengua, es una pena que Ud. solo piense y hable en ingles estadounidense. Me gustaria verlo a Ud hacer sus "aportes" en espanol o en otro idioma diferente al ingles, are you able?. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423www.sitioderecho.com.arwww.densi.com.ar > Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 04:24:32 -0700> From: dannyyounger@yahoo.com> To: wendy@seltzer.com> CC: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [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
_________________________________________________________________
Ingresá ya a MSN Deportes y enterate de las últimas novedades del mundo deportivo. http://msn.foxsports.com/fslasc/
____________________________________________________________________________________ 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