[Gnso-liaison] Is Staff in bed with NetSol?
Evan, I'm more than happy to discuss why the ALAC isn't working and what can be done to correct the situation. Let's start by having a look at the worldwide distribution of registrants in top gTLDs (over which ICANN exerts policy control). com/net/org/biz/info account for 97,000,000 registrations. Our region holds 65,000,000 of those registrations (fully two-thirds) yet our region has only 3 reps out of fifteen sitting on the ALAC -- a situation which does little to protect our interests. So when rogue registrars impact the DNS our region feels the brunt of it while the bulk of the ALAC members could care less as they tend to live mostly in the ccTLD world. Why are we at this point? Why is it that our region doesn't occupy the vast bulk of the seats on the ALAC? This is purely based on a distribution that reflects "political correctness" moreso than the realities of the marketplace. That may be acceptable to civil society types that only comment on the lists as the time approaches for another IGF session; it's not acceptable to most North Americans that continue to be affected by damaging gTLD registrar behaviors, and who are counting upon those in ICANN to deliver results. The ALAC has had countless opportunities to defend the user interest; instead, they have chosen to tacitly discriminate against North Americans by ignoring their immediate and ongoing concerns. It doesn't matter how many times someone like Kurt Pritz puts up slides indicating that issues with transfers are a top community concern; the ALAC will continue to stumble along and produce statements on ancillary matters such as IPv4 depletion instead of dealing with the serious problems at hand. It's time for not only an operational overhaul of the ALAC, but more importantly, we need to see a structural overhaul that "weighs" each region and assigns representation that reflects actual current worldwide participation in the DNS. Weighted voting is a reality in the GNSO; it should become the new reality in the ALAC. If that means that North America will be assigned 66 percent of reps on the ALAC at this point in time -- so be it. At some point soon the balance will switch to Asia, and when that happens I would expect the weighting to be changed to relect the new mix. The politically correct distribution that we suffer under has not worked out. A change is most certainly in order. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
At 08:58 17.02.2008 -0800, Danny Younger wrote:
If that means that North America will be assigned 66 percent of reps on the ALAC at this point in time -- so be it. At some point soon the balance will switch to Asia, and when that happens I would expect the weighting to be changed to relect the new mix.
The politically correct distribution that we suffer under has not worked out. A change is most certainly in order.
Quite the contrary - have you thought that some of the problems existing today may be due to the fact that there has been lack of balance in the beginning. As for your suggestion about today and "some point", this only shows how big the gap between you and the rest of the world is. You see, the world is not the USA only, and the fact that there are so many commercial registrants in this country only makes them involved into a business, which seems to be losing the momentum anyway. To make an analogy - since the US is contributing bigger share of the UN budget, does that mean it should tell the UN what to do, and the Security Council - how to vote? And if tomorrow another country starts paying more, will you be happy to see how it dictates you how to live. veni
Veni and all my friends, Your right that there has been a lack of balance sense the beginning, and that lack is essentially where Danny placed it and for the very reasons he outlined in brief. As for UN funding, and Americas share, in my strong opinion only, we as Americans pay taxes of which a portion of that Taxes funds the UN and all of it's internal organizations and we pay far too much and gain far too little in return. Yet this administration has made significant mistakes regarding our international relations which need correcting. And the over funding by the US of the UN is one of them. It's been long past time that America is looked upon to solve all the worlds problems with mostly our tax payers $$ to the UN. Let the UN seek it's funding in the open market place and see how well it does... Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Veni Markovski wrote:
At 08:58 17.02.2008 -0800, Danny Younger wrote:
If that means that North America will be assigned 66 percent of reps on the ALAC at this point in time -- so be it. At some point soon the balance will switch to Asia, and when that happens I would expect the weighting to be changed to relect the new mix.
The politically correct distribution that we suffer under has not worked out. A change is most certainly in order.
Quite the contrary - have you thought that some of the problems existing today may be due to the fact that there has been lack of balance in the beginning. As for your suggestion about today and "some point", this only shows how big the gap between you and the rest of the world is. You see, the world is not the USA only, and the fact that there are so many commercial registrants in this country only makes them involved into a business, which seems to be losing the momentum anyway. To make an analogy - since the US is contributing bigger share of the UN budget, does that mean it should tell the UN what to do, and the Security Council - how to vote? And if tomorrow another country starts paying more, will you be happy to see how it dictates you how to live.
veni
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Judging from the past 100 emails, I would say the most effective thing that ALAC could do is set up a publicly visible mailing list that only Committee members could post to. And then shut down all the others. I don't find too many people in the other ACs and SOs dedicating most of their time to: a) Attacking one another, and b) Throwing out haphazard plans for complete reorganization of ICANN on a whim Surely ALAC can agree on some standards for acceptable posting? If the complaint is that ALAC doesn't produce enough in terms of serious policy input into ICANN's processes then the explanation has been the past few days on this mailing list. Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org
John and all my friends, Thank you John, I believe your correct! However there are some folks that have a need to have absolute control or wish to keep their heads in the sand and eyes closed when they shouldn't. Not much anyone can say to reverse of correct that attitude, but we must be realistic it exists and is sometimes prevalent. Kieren strikes me as one of the above loosely described folks... Shame that... BTW, these sort of folks with such an attitude usually go through life until the bitter end, largly blind and deaf to the world they live in and subsequently clueless.. Such also largly seems to be a stalworth with ICANN and many times Governements or government agencies... Also a terrible and sometimes dangerous shame as well... However that all said, I believe Churchill had it right when dealing with these sorts of folks when he uttered: "throw the rascals out"! However I prefer the basic: "Your Fired!" But than again, I'm an American. >:) Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 John L wrote:
Surely ALAC can agree on some standards for acceptable posting?
ALAC has its problems, but I don't believe that we find the lack of a hall monitor to be one of them.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Kieren McCarthy wrote:
Judging from the past 100 emails, I would say the most effective thing that ALAC could do is set up a publicly visible mailing list that only Committee members could post to. And then shut down all the others.
There is an unpleasant irony in the observation that the first action _ever_ advanced here by ICANN's "general manager of public participation" is to shut down public forums. ALAC exist to serve, seek and advance the causes of the general public, and the general public doesn't always speak in soothing tones. Our challenge is to extract the often-reasonable points sometimes buried in personal posts, and to debate those on merit. Perhaps those who are bothered by the tone of some messages should discover the "Delete" button. People's right to speak does not require you to listen, and those whose words seek only to incite negativity can be stopped by ignoring them. On the other hand.... Censorship is a last, cowardly, resort, here as it is anywhere. We are nowhere near that level of desperation. - Evan
Kieren and all my friends, Some how I knew you were going to chime in and make some censorship sort of declaration. Bad idea, and inconsistent with the MOU as well... Shame on you! >:( 100 emails is nothing, I get more than three times that many every day... Kieren McCarthy wrote:
Judging from the past 100 emails, I would say the most effective thing that ALAC could do is set up a publicly visible mailing list that only Committee members could post to. And then shut down all the others.
I don't find too many people in the other ACs and SOs dedicating most of their time to:
a) Attacking one another, and b) Throwing out haphazard plans for complete reorganization of ICANN on a whim
Surely ALAC can agree on some standards for acceptable posting?
If the complaint is that ALAC doesn't produce enough in terms of serious policy input into ICANN's processes then the explanation has been the past few days on this mailing list.
Kieren
----------------------
Kieren McCarthy
----------------------
General manager of public participation, ICANN
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Thankyou to those who replied to this thread, every one of which outlined my point more effectively than I could hope to. I complained that the effectiveness of ALAC to do its job in a useful and professional manner is damaged by personal attacks and unhelpful responses. The response was personal attacks and unhelpful responses. Other major flaws in allowing a mailing list that is supposed to develop consensus on important policy topics that affect Internet users include: * Misstatements of fact (e.g. this is not the first time I have posted to this list - far from it). In a normal environment, this approach would be heavily discouraged, even punished, since it leads to confusion and a waste of valuable time. * The use of emotive catch-all phrases in order to avoid discussing the real issue (e.g. the grossly over-used notion of "censorship"). Do you accuse parliaments, senates, and all other representative organs of censorship because they do not allow anyone at all the opportunity to turn up and say whatever they wish (again using up valuable time and resources)? * Wild accusation with no basis in fact (e.g. the suggestion that I am in position to shut down mailing lists). * Aggressive defence of the indefensible (e.g. "100 emails is nothing". In fact, 100 emails could easily lead to improved relations and development of consensus, rather than the opposite effect of crowding out discussion). Every decision-making organ in the history of the world has relied on the use of representatives to put forward the views of a large number of people. That larger group of people then seek to persuade the representatives of their point and ask them to enter it into discussions. In the most effective form of accountability and representativeness so far - democracy - those representatives are voted in, and can be voted out in periodic elections. This is the model that ALAC follows - or should be following - if it is to provide useful policy input. My suggestion was that there exist a publicly visible mailing list for ALAC committee members to which only they are able to post. This is a mailing list that would enable the representatives of Internet users to discuss policy among themselves. It would provoke more thoughtful and productive work and also provide transparency to the wider community - who would be in a position to approach representatives on particular points and seek to persuade them of their view. That is a mailing list that I would subscribe to and read with pleasure. This on the other hand is a mailing list dominated by a few frequent posters who appear to regard argument and baiting as a more valuable use of their - and everyone else's - time than real, substantive consensus building on important policy topics. That these posts then complain that no serious consensus building is achieved on a list that is so heavily disrupted by their frequent outbursts, is the greatest irony. I now expect this post to be misrepresented in a series of personal attacks and unhelpful responses, complete with misstatements of fact, use of emotive catch-all phrases, wild accusation with no basis in fact, and aggressive defence of the indefensible. If people wish to have a discussion about the nature of participation within ICANN processes, I am open to that. My opening question would be: when there are over billion people online and millions of domain name holders: is a system where interaction on the main At Large mailing list is limited to the same 20 voices an example of effective participation? If not, what can be done to make it more involving? Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:38 AM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] Give it a break Judging from the past 100 emails, I would say the most effective thing that ALAC could do is set up a publicly visible mailing list that only Committee members could post to. And then shut down all the others. I don't find too many people in the other ACs and SOs dedicating most of their time to: a) Attacking one another, and b) Throwing out haphazard plans for complete reorganization of ICANN on a whim Surely ALAC can agree on some standards for acceptable posting? If the complaint is that ALAC doesn't produce enough in terms of serious policy input into ICANN's processes then the explanation has been the past few days on this mailing list. Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Kieren and all my friends, I am sorry that you misconstrued anything I responded to you as a personal attack. I cannot understand how you could do so. Rather recognizing your attack on everyone in your earlier post seemed to be not well thought out and begged or compelled myself and others to make your and every one recognize that without reservation. Had everyone been silent, that may have been construed as being in agreement with your earlier contention. Such would be inaccurate and a clear correction was needed accordingly... Please, try to be more open minded... Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Kieren McCarthy wrote:
Thankyou to those who replied to this thread, every one of which outlined my point more effectively than I could hope to.
I complained that the effectiveness of ALAC to do its job in a useful and professional manner is damaged by personal attacks and unhelpful responses.
The response was personal attacks and unhelpful responses.
Other major flaws in allowing a mailing list that is supposed to develop consensus on important policy topics that affect Internet users include:
* Misstatements of fact (e.g. this is not the first time I have posted to this list - far from it). In a normal environment, this approach would be heavily discouraged, even punished, since it leads to confusion and a waste of valuable time.
* The use of emotive catch-all phrases in order to avoid discussing the real issue (e.g. the grossly over-used notion of "censorship"). Do you accuse parliaments, senates, and all other representative organs of censorship because they do not allow anyone at all the opportunity to turn up and say whatever they wish (again using up valuable time and resources)?
* Wild accusation with no basis in fact (e.g. the suggestion that I am in position to shut down mailing lists).
* Aggressive defence of the indefensible (e.g. "100 emails is nothing". In fact, 100 emails could easily lead to improved relations and development of consensus, rather than the opposite effect of crowding out discussion).
Every decision-making organ in the history of the world has relied on the use of representatives to put forward the views of a large number of people. That larger group of people then seek to persuade the representatives of their point and ask them to enter it into discussions.
In the most effective form of accountability and representativeness so far - democracy - those representatives are voted in, and can be voted out in periodic elections. This is the model that ALAC follows - or should be following - if it is to provide useful policy input.
My suggestion was that there exist a publicly visible mailing list for ALAC committee members to which only they are able to post. This is a mailing list that would enable the representatives of Internet users to discuss policy among themselves. It would provoke more thoughtful and productive work and also provide transparency to the wider community - who would be in a position to approach representatives on particular points and seek to persuade them of their view.
That is a mailing list that I would subscribe to and read with pleasure.
This on the other hand is a mailing list dominated by a few frequent posters who appear to regard argument and baiting as a more valuable use of their - and everyone else's - time than real, substantive consensus building on important policy topics.
That these posts then complain that no serious consensus building is achieved on a list that is so heavily disrupted by their frequent outbursts, is the greatest irony.
I now expect this post to be misrepresented in a series of personal attacks and unhelpful responses, complete with misstatements of fact, use of emotive catch-all phrases, wild accusation with no basis in fact, and aggressive defence of the indefensible.
If people wish to have a discussion about the nature of participation within ICANN processes, I am open to that.
My opening question would be: when there are over billion people online and millions of domain name holders: is a system where interaction on the main At Large mailing list is limited to the same 20 voices an example of effective participation?
If not, what can be done to make it more involving?
Kieren
----------------------
Kieren McCarthy
----------------------
General manager of public participation, ICANN
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:38 AM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] Give it a break
Judging from the past 100 emails, I would say the most effective thing that ALAC could do is set up a publicly visible mailing list that only Committee members could post to. And then shut down all the others.
I don't find too many people in the other ACs and SOs dedicating most of their time to:
a) Attacking one another, and b) Throwing out haphazard plans for complete reorganization of ICANN on a whim
Surely ALAC can agree on some standards for acceptable posting?
If the complaint is that ALAC doesn't produce enough in terms of serious policy input into ICANN's processes then the explanation has been the past few days on this mailing list.
Kieren
----------------------
Kieren McCarthy
----------------------
General manager of public participation, ICANN
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
Had everyone been silent, that may have been construed as being in agreement with your earlier contention.
Sometimes, silence is just silence. The inference of "silence means consent" is a cultural artefact of ALAC that some of us are actively trying to eliminate. - Evan
The inference of "silence means consent" is a cultural artefact of ALAC that some of us are actively trying to eliminate.
Evan, for once, we are in total agreement. I think the problem stems from the sheer number of emails that are produced. How is anyone able - especially when the vast majority of people are doing ICANN work in their spare time - to tell the difference between a post that seeks input on a decision soon to made, and just one of the many posts that form a constant backdrop of bickering? With the public comment page on the ICANN site - http://www.icann.org/public_comment/ - I have tried to produce a one-stop page where people are able to find exactly what ICANN is seeking input on at any given time. When a greater degree of focus is given, people can use their limited time more productively. The result has been more, and more useful comments, which has made the process more valuable, which gives the resulting summary/analysis of comments greater weight. It is still far from what it needs to be, but it is an improvement. Nevertheless, it still worries me when there are only one or two comments made to official comment periods when I know that there are at least 50 people who have been discussing that precise point on various mailing lists. As I look at it now, there are six comment periods open on: the Translation Programme; New gTLDs and DNS Stability; Initial report on ccIDN fasttrack; Whois studies; Introduction of IDN ccTLDs; and Nominating Committee review. There are some comments on each but really far, far less than there should be. I would be delighted to see ALAC as a group put in a response to each and every comment period opened (I would also love to see other SOs and ACs do the same). That would be one way to demonstrate the At Large community's value. But, yes, silence is, to my mind, almost the opposite of consent. It smacks of disengagement or disinterest - neither of which are healthy. Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org Cell: +1 310 806 1451 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 783686 -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:55 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
Had everyone been silent, that may have been construed as being in agreement with your earlier contention.
Sometimes, silence is just silence. The inference of "silence means consent" is a cultural artefact of ALAC that some of us are actively trying to eliminate. - Evan _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Kieren and all my friends, You can start by working FULL time. Some posts are indeed bickering and some are not. Reading them all is the responsible thing to do and make your own decision as to which is which, and take whatever action or lack there of accordingly. Complaining about the number of posts is also bickering, BTW... Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Kieren McCarthy wrote:
The inference of "silence means consent" is a cultural artefact of ALAC that some of us are actively trying to eliminate.
Evan, for once, we are in total agreement.
I think the problem stems from the sheer number of emails that are produced.
How is anyone able - especially when the vast majority of people are doing ICANN work in their spare time - to tell the difference between a post that seeks input on a decision soon to made, and just one of the many posts that form a constant backdrop of bickering?
With the public comment page on the ICANN site - http://www.icann.org/public_comment/ - I have tried to produce a one-stop page where people are able to find exactly what ICANN is seeking input on at any given time.
When a greater degree of focus is given, people can use their limited time more productively. The result has been more, and more useful comments, which has made the process more valuable, which gives the resulting summary/analysis of comments greater weight. It is still far from what it needs to be, but it is an improvement.
Nevertheless, it still worries me when there are only one or two comments made to official comment periods when I know that there are at least 50 people who have been discussing that precise point on various mailing lists.
As I look at it now, there are six comment periods open on: the Translation Programme; New gTLDs and DNS Stability; Initial report on ccIDN fasttrack; Whois studies; Introduction of IDN ccTLDs; and Nominating Committee review.
There are some comments on each but really far, far less than there should be.
I would be delighted to see ALAC as a group put in a response to each and every comment period opened (I would also love to see other SOs and ACs do the same). That would be one way to demonstrate the At Large community's value.
But, yes, silence is, to my mind, almost the opposite of consent. It smacks of disengagement or disinterest - neither of which are healthy.
Kieren
----------------------
Kieren McCarthy
----------------------
General manager of public participation, ICANN
Cell: +1 310 806 1451
Mobile: +44 (0)7932 783686
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:55 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break
Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
Had everyone been silent, that may have been construed as being in agreement with your earlier contention.
Sometimes, silence is just silence.
The inference of "silence means consent" is a cultural artefact of ALAC that some of us are actively trying to eliminate.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
I will endeavour to do the following with each post to this list: 1. Point to a problem and explain why I think it is a problem 2. Propose a suggested solution 3. Avoid personal attack, unhelpful response, misstatement of fact, use of emotive catch-all phrase, wild accusation with no basis in fact, and aggressive defence of the indefensible. In this case: 1. The problem lies with the unstructured and back-and-forth nature of this list where problems aren't outlined and discussion often reverts to accusation - this hinders useful decision-making 2. The solution, with regard to my input at least, is the three-point approach outlined above 3. Only a positive, helpful approach taken in this post and, hopefully, in subsequent responses Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org
Evan and all my friends, I agree sometimes silence is just silence. But with ICANN staff/bod members that paradigm doesn't compute very well. I am glad to read that the ALAC is trying to eliminate the false notion that Silence is normally construed as being in agreement. I interpret that to mean silence is not always a good thing and is in the decision as to when to be silent, in the hands of every individual. Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
Had everyone been silent, that may have been construed as being in agreement with your earlier contention.
Sometimes, silence is just silence.
The inference of "silence means consent" is a cultural artefact of ALAC that some of us are actively trying to eliminate.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
2008/2/18, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>:
Evan and all my friends,
I agree sometimes silence is just silence. But with ICANN staff/bod members that paradigm doesn't compute very well.
I am glad to read that the ALAC is trying to eliminate the false notion that Silence is normally construed as being in agreement. I interpret that to mean silence is not always a good thing and is in the decision as to when to be silent, in the hands of every individual.
as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't think silence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unless it was called many times for consent. often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bother my precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similar attitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own work in professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, let them be. we have no luxury of time to waste. izumi Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
Had everyone been silent, that may have been construed as being in agreement with your earlier contention.
Sometimes, silence is just silence.
The inference of "silence means consent" is a cultural artefact of ALAC that some of us are actively trying to eliminate.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
As another non-native English speaker, I agree with Izumi. The US-centric perception that if someone is silent, then they agree with the American point of view is just that - a perception, but not a reality. In many cultures we'll stay quiet as a sign of disagreement. veni On Feb 18, 2008 3:53 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't think silence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unless it was called many times for consent.
often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bother my precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similar attitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own work in professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, let them be. we have no luxury of time to waste.
izumi
I would not say "American" - there are many pepple who's mother tongue is almost English outside the USA. So I would rather avoid making it "American", Veni, which may lead to misinterpretation and misunderstandings. I mean, Singapore, (some folks in India, but not all), Malaysia to some extent, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, oh and England, and some African countries... Anyway, how to interprete silence is a difficult task and we do not have consensus on that, that I can say for sure. izumi 2008/2/18, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com>:
As another non-native English speaker, I agree with Izumi. The US-centric perception that if someone is silent, then they agree with the American point of view is just that - a perception, but not a reality. In many cultures we'll stay quiet as a sign of disagreement.
veni
On Feb 18, 2008 3:53 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't think silence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unless it was called many times for consent.
often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bother my precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similar attitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own work in professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, let them be. we have no luxury of time to waste.
izumi
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
Speaking personally, I certainly agree. When I am silent it means that I don't really care about the topic at hand or am dismissing it as being silly. It *most definitely* doesn't mean consent. D ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Izumi AIZU Sent: Mon 2/18/2008 8:46 AM To: Veni Markovski Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break I would not say "American" - there are many pepple who's mother tongue is almost English outside the USA. So I would rather avoid making it "American", Veni, which may lead to misinterpretation and misunderstandings. I mean, Singapore, (some folks in India, but not all), Malaysia to some extent, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, oh and England, and some African countries... Anyway, how to interprete silence is a difficult task and we do not have consensus on that, that I can say for sure. izumi 2008/2/18, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com>: As another non-native English speaker, I agree with Izumi. The US-centric perception that if someone is silent, then they agree with the American point of view is just that - a perception, but not a reality. In many cultures we'll stay quiet as a sign of disagreement. veni On Feb 18, 2008 3:53 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote: as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't think silence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unless it was called many times for consent. often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bother my precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similar attitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own work in professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, let them be. we have no luxury of time to waste. izumi _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org <http://www.alac.icann.org/> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org <http://www.icannalac.org/> -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org <http://www.anr.org/>
Darlene and all my friends, Also agreed. However the powers that be withing ICANN don't necessarly share your take on silence. I do to a degree, in that I dismiss nothing except what I am not aware of of course, and believe no one is necessarly "Silly". I certainly don't believe anyond on this forum is or has stated anything that is silly or deserves being dismissive about. "Thompson, Darlene" wrote:
Speaking personally, I certainly agree. When I am silent it means that I don't really care about the topic at hand or am dismissing it as being silly. It *most definitely* doesn't mean consent.
D
----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Izumi AIZU Sent: Mon 2/18/2008 8:46 AM To: Veni Markovski Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break
I would not say "American" - there are many pepple who's mother tongue
is almost English outside the USA. So I would rather avoid making it "American", Veni, which may lead to misinterpretation and misunderstandings.
I mean, Singapore, (some folks in India, but not all), Malaysia to some extent, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, oh and England, and some African countries...
Anyway, how to interprete silence is a difficult task and we do not have consensus on that, that I can say for sure.
izumi 2008/2/18, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com>:
As another non-native English speaker, I agree with Izumi. The US-centric perception that if someone is silent, then they agree with the American point of view is just that - a perception, but not a reality. In many cultures we'll stay quiet as a sign of disagreement.
veni
On Feb 18, 2008 3:53 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't thinksilence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unlessit was called many times for consent. often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bothermy precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similarattitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own workin professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, letthem be. we have no luxury of time to waste. izumi
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
ttp://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Izumi and all my friends, Very much agreed and the point I was earlier on this thread, making... Well done! Izumi AIZU wrote:
I would not say "American" - there are many pepple who's mother tongue
is almost English outside the USA. So I would rather avoid making it "American", Veni, which may lead to misinterpretation and misunderstandings.
I mean, Singapore, (some folks in India, but not all), Malaysia to some extent, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, oh and England, and some African countries...
Anyway, how to interprete silence is a difficult task and we do not have consensus on that, that I can say for sure.
izumi 2008/2/18, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com>:
As another non-native English speaker, I agree with Izumi. The US-centric perception that if someone is silent, then they agree with the American point of view is just that - a perception, but not a reality. In many cultures we'll stay quiet as a sign of disagreement.
veni
On Feb 18, 2008 3:53 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't thinksilence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unlessit was called many times for consent. often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bothermy precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similarattitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own workin professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, letthem be. we have no luxury of time to waste. izumi
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
ttp://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
And the English speaking Caribbean! Don't forget the 21 of us countries over here! On Feb 18, 2008 9:46 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
I would not say "American" - there are many pepple who's mother tongue is almost English outside the USA. So I would rather avoid making it "American", Veni, which may lead to misinterpretation and misunderstandings.
I mean, Singapore, (some folks in India, but not all), Malaysia to some extent, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, oh and England, and some African countries...
Anyway, how to interprete silence is a difficult task and we do not have consensus on that, that I can say for sure.
izumi
2008/2/18, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com>:
As another non-native English speaker, I agree with Izumi. The US-centric
perception that if someone is silent, then they agree with the American point of view is just that - a perception, but not a reality. In many cultures we'll stay quiet as a sign of disagreement.
veni
On Feb 18, 2008 3:53 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't think silence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unless it was called many times for consent.
often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bother my precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similar attitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own work in professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, let them be. we have no luxury of time to waste.
izumi
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
of course! we should not ignore the impact of british empire be it wright or wrong... ;-) izumi 2008/2/19, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
And the English speaking Caribbean! Don't forget the 21 of us countries over here!
On Feb 18, 2008 9:46 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
I would not say "American" - there are many pepple who's mother tongue is almost English outside the USA. So I would rather avoid making it "American", Veni, which may lead to misinterpretation and misunderstandings.
I mean, Singapore, (some folks in India, but not all), Malaysia to some extent, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, oh and England, and some African countries...
Anyway, how to interprete silence is a difficult task and we do not have consensus on that, that I can say for sure.
izumi
2008/2/18, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com>:
As another non-native English speaker, I agree with Izumi. The
US-centric perception that if someone is silent, then they agree with the American point of view is just that - a perception, but not a reality. In many cultures we'll stay quiet as a sign of disagreement.
veni
On Feb 18, 2008 3:53 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't
think
silence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unless it was called many times for consent.
often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bother my precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similar attitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own work in professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, let them be. we have no luxury of time to waste.
izumi
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
Izumi and all my friends, Thankfully the British Empire is more often right than wrong as history has taught us all be it the the Empire has shrunk in size sense Queen Victoria's time largely based upon it's mistakes... >;) Izumi AIZU wrote:
of course! we should not ignore the impact of british empire be it wright or wrong... ;-)
izumi 2008/2/19, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
And the English speaking Caribbean! Don't forget the 21 of us countries over here!
On Feb 18, 2008 9:46 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote: > I would not say "American" - there are many pepple who's mother tongue > is almost English outside the USA. So I would rather avoid making it > "American", Veni, which may lead to misinterpretation and misunderstandings. > > I mean, Singapore, (some folks in India, but not all), Malaysia to some > extent, > Australia, New Zealand, Canada, oh and England, and some African > countries... > > Anyway, how to interprete silence is a difficult task and we do not have > consensus on that, that I can say for sure. > > izumi > > 2008/2/18, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com>: > > > > > > > > As another non-native English speaker, I agree with Izumi. The US-centric > perception that if someone is silent, then they agree with the American > point of view is just that - a perception, but not a reality. In many > cultures we'll stay quiet as a sign of disagreement. > > > > veni > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 2008 3:53 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't think > > > silence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unless > > > it was called many times for consent. > > > > > > often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bother > > > my precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similar > > > attitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own work > > > in professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, let > > > them be. we have no luxury of time to waste. > > > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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://www.alac.icann.org > > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita > Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > _______________________________________________ > 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://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org >
-- >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
HI Veni I agree with you and Izumi, and I also note that I think this is partially why LAC hasn't made a lot of statements - not enough consent or participation to say - yes, we agree or no, we don't. If there is silence or little involvement on a topic, then individual statements are made, not a group one.(like NTIA JPA comment discussion recently) On Feb 18, 2008 6:36 AM, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com> wrote:
As another non-native English speaker, I agree with Izumi. The US-centric perception that if someone is silent, then they agree with the American point of view is just that - a perception, but not a reality. In many cultures we'll stay quiet as a sign of disagreement.
veni
On Feb 18, 2008 3:53 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't think silence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unless it was called many times for consent.
often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bother my precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similar attitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own work in professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, let them be. we have no luxury of time to waste.
izumi
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Jacqueline and all my friends, Good point and one that I am sure ICANN fully supports, which is why despite personal beliefs, a vote on proposals, formal or non-formal needs to be taken. Silence may sometimes be golden, but is often misunderstood or misinterpreted. What's worse however is the users don't yet now, nor have ever had a voice or a vote within the ICANN structure, nor have Independant Registrants whom indirectly provide the lions share of ICANN's financial support. Such is the existing and inherant poor structure of ICANN and has been sense it's very conception. Jacqueline Morris wrote:
HI Veni I agree with you and Izumi, and I also note that I think this is partially why LAC hasn't made a lot of statements - not enough consent or participation to say - yes, we agree or no, we don't. If there is silence or little involvement on a topic, then individual statements are made, not a group one.(like NTIA JPA comment discussion recently)
On Feb 18, 2008 6:36 AM, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com> wrote:
As another non-native English speaker, I agree with Izumi. The US-centric perception that if someone is silent, then they agree with the American point of view is just that - a perception, but not a reality. In many cultures we'll stay quiet as a sign of disagreement.
veni
On Feb 18, 2008 3:53 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:
as an old time at ALAC, and non-English speaking people, I don't think silence is agreement at all, and it never was the norm either unless it was called many times for consent.
often, I ignore the things that do not make sense or worth to bother my precious time - and I know many of my colleagues have similar attitude. unfortunate, maybe, but we are busy in doing our own work in professional manners and those things go outside of our cotrol, let them be. we have no luxury of time to waste.
izumi
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Kieren McCarthy ha scritto:
Every decision-making organ in the history of the world has relied on the use of representatives to put forward the views of a large number of people. That larger group of people then seek to persuade the representatives of their point and ask them to enter it into discussions.
In the most effective form of accountability and representativeness so far - democracy - those representatives are voted in, and can be voted out in periodic elections. This is the model that ALAC follows - or should be following - if it is to provide useful policy input.
I tend to disagree on this, for at least two reasons. One is specific - the ALAC also has an internal mailing list, which committee members heavily use; in fact, most of the discussions inside the group tend to happen on the internal list rather than on this one. So I don't see how any level of noise on this list can hamper the ALAC's ability to work - in fact, in the model you expose, ALAC members could just ignore this list altogether. The other one is philosophical - even if I was one of the people who designed this model, and even if one of the reasons for it was also to provide an intermediate, representative point where votes could be taken, you can't just conclude that the ALAC has a blank mandate to do and say whatever they like without consulting on each issue and only being accountable when needing reelection. This traditional, 19th century model is in deep crisis almost everywhere in the world. Increasingly, people are unwilling to delegate to intermediate bureaucracy layers. The Internet is the place where this happens more than everywhere else, as things tend to happen by consensus and in several cases there is no real authority unless it is continuously recognized by the bottom. If your problem is that you want messages by Mr. Williams to be filtered out, let the ALAC adopt netiquette rules under which his messages, as well as those by anyone else, can be judged. But this does not imply shutting down lines of dialogue between the ALAC and its constituents. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
At 10:10 18/02/2008, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
If your problem is that you want messages by Mr. Williams to be filtered out, let the ALAC adopt netiquette rules
Dear Vittorio, I dislike the notion of punishment that underlays Kieren's position. I filter out our good friend Jeff Williams for years. This has not really reduced my information of his positions. Most of them (as Danny's and others) are really local to the USA - what I think normal since the gTLDs and ICANN are mainly of US interest. When they are of interest to non US people there is always someone commenting them, often with how own local common sense. So I am informed and advised at the same time. Saves time for better information. jfc
JFC and all my friends, JFC's remarks points up exactly one very good reason filtering or censoring is wrong. As spokesman for our organization, I am fully aware of the majority of our members positions which we all vote upon and review periodiacally, and our members are in over 100+ nations, so factually JFC is not very well aware or factually aware. None or our members possitions are mainly of US interest at all.. Never have been, and I hope, never shall be. I can only account for JFC's error and attitude as one that reflects perhaps the strained relations the US has had with France in the past few years until very recently wiht the election of a new prime minister. JFC Morfin wrote:
At 10:10 18/02/2008, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
If your problem is that you want messages by Mr. Williams to be filtered out, let the ALAC adopt netiquette rules
Dear Vittorio, I dislike the notion of punishment that underlays Kieren's position. I filter out our good friend Jeff Williams for years. This has not really reduced my information of his positions. Most of them (as Danny's and others) are really local to the USA - what I think normal since the gTLDs and ICANN are mainly of US interest. When they are of interest to non US people there is always someone commenting them, often with how own local common sense. So I am informed and advised at the same time. Saves time for better information. jfc
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Every decision-making organ in the history of the world has relied on the use of representatives to put forward the views of a large number of people. That larger group of people then seek to persuade the representatives of their point and ask them to enter it into discussions.
In the most effective form of accountability and representativeness so far
Hi Vittorio, all My main point is this: how can I see the lines of discussion within ALAC? How do I see policy forming, and how can I have input into that? My job is to get people involved in ICANN. In many cases that is someone with an interest in what we do but who needs to be helped and pulled into the process - of whom I met many during this recent meeting. I can't point them to an internal mailing list. And, as it is at the moment, I wouldn't want to subject people to the At Large public mailing list. I know there are lots of people working very hard in ALAC and in the RALOs to make this kind of review and interaction happen, and I have seen the many wiki pages and mailing lists that work to make this information readily available (I think the IDN page is possibly the best: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy), but at the moment it stills feels too spread apart and too insular. This is not a criticism of the hard work people are doing, it is simply an outside observation. At the moment, because I simply do not have time to sign up to and review all the different mailing lists, I use the At Large mailing list to keep track of what is going on. What you find on that list however - in a similar way to the GA list - is a very aggressive and negative forum dominated by a small number of people who are likely to scare off genuine participants that wish to know more. In essence, the public mailing list is ALAC's public face, and it is not a very pleasant one to look at. There is also the issue that the adversarial approach on the list is the antithesis of what ICANN purports to be - a consensus-building body. It creates exactly the wrong sort of atmosphere and, I believe, damages the careful co-operative links built up between people. In tolerating instinctive knee-jerk criticism, people who work hard are put on the defensive and in so doing are demoralized from providing their time and energies in the future. Consensus building should be the equivalent of intelligent, if occasionally passionate, discussion held round a group of chairs in a café. At the moment - on the public mailing list at least - it is more of a yelled argument over loud music in a bar. I'm not trying to tell ALAC what to do, and I realise that saying all this comes across as yet more criticism piled on top of a constant stream of criticism, but it does concern me and so I feel obliged to raise it. Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:40 PM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break Kieren McCarthy ha scritto: -
democracy - those representatives are voted in, and can be voted out in periodic elections. This is the model that ALAC follows - or should be following - if it is to provide useful policy input.
I tend to disagree on this, for at least two reasons. One is specific - the ALAC also has an internal mailing list, which committee members heavily use; in fact, most of the discussions inside the group tend to happen on the internal list rather than on this one. So I don't see how any level of noise on this list can hamper the ALAC's ability to work - in fact, in the model you expose, ALAC members could just ignore this list altogether. The other one is philosophical - even if I was one of the people who designed this model, and even if one of the reasons for it was also to provide an intermediate, representative point where votes could be taken, you can't just conclude that the ALAC has a blank mandate to do and say whatever they like without consulting on each issue and only being accountable when needing reelection. This traditional, 19th century model is in deep crisis almost everywhere in the world. Increasingly, people are unwilling to delegate to intermediate bureaucracy layers. The Internet is the place where this happens more than everywhere else, as things tend to happen by consensus and in several cases there is no real authority unless it is continuously recognized by the bottom. If your problem is that you want messages by Mr. Williams to be filtered out, let the ALAC adopt netiquette rules under which his messages, as well as those by anyone else, can be judged. But this does not imply shutting down lines of dialogue between the ALAC and its constituents. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Every decision-making organ in the history of the world has relied on the use of representatives to put forward the views of a large number of people. That larger group of people then seek to persuade the representatives of their point and ask them to enter it into discussions.
In the most effective form of accountability and representativeness so far
Further to my last message Kieren ... our Working groups use the Wiki's to aggregate list outcomes and where you find these details... Also each WG has a lead and or Chair and they can provide regular updates to you if that would help... and of course in reports from out Monthly ALAC Meetings and the various RALO ones as well... The beta web site we saw in New Delhi will make the navigation to such issue interest much easier and we look forward to that transition... List overload and the cacophony of topics on single list format, is why we have adopted this new method and indeed our new work flow paradigm that (since our Delhi meeting) will come into action and integrate Regional and ALS input more effectively... CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, 18 February 2008 9:20 PM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break Hi Vittorio, all My main point is this: how can I see the lines of discussion within ALAC? How do I see policy forming, and how can I have input into that? My job is to get people involved in ICANN. In many cases that is someone with an interest in what we do but who needs to be helped and pulled into the process - of whom I met many during this recent meeting. I can't point them to an internal mailing list. And, as it is at the moment, I wouldn't want to subject people to the At Large public mailing list. I know there are lots of people working very hard in ALAC and in the RALOs to make this kind of review and interaction happen, and I have seen the many wiki pages and mailing lists that work to make this information readily available (I think the IDN page is possibly the best: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy), but at the moment it stills feels too spread apart and too insular. This is not a criticism of the hard work people are doing, it is simply an outside observation. At the moment, because I simply do not have time to sign up to and review all the different mailing lists, I use the At Large mailing list to keep track of what is going on. What you find on that list however - in a similar way to the GA list - is a very aggressive and negative forum dominated by a small number of people who are likely to scare off genuine participants that wish to know more. In essence, the public mailing list is ALAC's public face, and it is not a very pleasant one to look at. There is also the issue that the adversarial approach on the list is the antithesis of what ICANN purports to be - a consensus-building body. It creates exactly the wrong sort of atmosphere and, I believe, damages the careful co-operative links built up between people. In tolerating instinctive knee-jerk criticism, people who work hard are put on the defensive and in so doing are demoralized from providing their time and energies in the future. Consensus building should be the equivalent of intelligent, if occasionally passionate, discussion held round a group of chairs in a café. At the moment - on the public mailing list at least - it is more of a yelled argument over loud music in a bar. I'm not trying to tell ALAC what to do, and I realise that saying all this comes across as yet more criticism piled on top of a constant stream of criticism, but it does concern me and so I feel obliged to raise it. Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:40 PM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break Kieren McCarthy ha scritto: -
democracy - those representatives are voted in, and can be voted out in periodic elections. This is the model that ALAC follows - or should be following - if it is to provide useful policy input.
I tend to disagree on this, for at least two reasons. One is specific - the ALAC also has an internal mailing list, which committee members heavily use; in fact, most of the discussions inside the group tend to happen on the internal list rather than on this one. So I don't see how any level of noise on this list can hamper the ALAC's ability to work - in fact, in the model you expose, ALAC members could just ignore this list altogether. The other one is philosophical - even if I was one of the people who designed this model, and even if one of the reasons for it was also to provide an intermediate, representative point where votes could be taken, you can't just conclude that the ALAC has a blank mandate to do and say whatever they like without consulting on each issue and only being accountable when needing reelection. This traditional, 19th century model is in deep crisis almost everywhere in the world. Increasingly, people are unwilling to delegate to intermediate bureaucracy layers. The Internet is the place where this happens more than everywhere else, as things tend to happen by consensus and in several cases there is no real authority unless it is continuously recognized by the bottom. If your problem is that you want messages by Mr. Williams to be filtered out, let the ALAC adopt netiquette rules under which his messages, as well as those by anyone else, can be judged. But this does not imply shutting down lines of dialogue between the ALAC and its constituents. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Every decision-making organ in the history of the world has relied on the use of representatives to put forward the views of a large number of people. That larger group of people then seek to persuade the representatives of their point and ask them to enter it into discussions.
In the most effective form of accountability and representativeness so far
Thankyou Cheryl - as ever one step ahead of me. Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 4:33 PM To: 'Kieren McCarthy'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] How do I find out what is going on in Policy Work? ( was Give It a Break) Further to my last message Kieren ... our Working groups use the Wiki's to aggregate list outcomes and where you find these details... Also each WG has a lead and or Chair and they can provide regular updates to you if that would help... and of course in reports from out Monthly ALAC Meetings and the various RALO ones as well... The beta web site we saw in New Delhi will make the navigation to such issue interest much easier and we look forward to that transition... List overload and the cacophony of topics on single list format, is why we have adopted this new method and indeed our new work flow paradigm that (since our Delhi meeting) will come into action and integrate Regional and ALS input more effectively... CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Monday, 18 February 2008 9:20 PM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break Hi Vittorio, all My main point is this: how can I see the lines of discussion within ALAC? How do I see policy forming, and how can I have input into that? My job is to get people involved in ICANN. In many cases that is someone with an interest in what we do but who needs to be helped and pulled into the process - of whom I met many during this recent meeting. I can't point them to an internal mailing list. And, as it is at the moment, I wouldn't want to subject people to the At Large public mailing list. I know there are lots of people working very hard in ALAC and in the RALOs to make this kind of review and interaction happen, and I have seen the many wiki pages and mailing lists that work to make this information readily available (I think the IDN page is possibly the best: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy), but at the moment it stills feels too spread apart and too insular. This is not a criticism of the hard work people are doing, it is simply an outside observation. At the moment, because I simply do not have time to sign up to and review all the different mailing lists, I use the At Large mailing list to keep track of what is going on. What you find on that list however - in a similar way to the GA list - is a very aggressive and negative forum dominated by a small number of people who are likely to scare off genuine participants that wish to know more. In essence, the public mailing list is ALAC's public face, and it is not a very pleasant one to look at. There is also the issue that the adversarial approach on the list is the antithesis of what ICANN purports to be - a consensus-building body. It creates exactly the wrong sort of atmosphere and, I believe, damages the careful co-operative links built up between people. In tolerating instinctive knee-jerk criticism, people who work hard are put on the defensive and in so doing are demoralized from providing their time and energies in the future. Consensus building should be the equivalent of intelligent, if occasionally passionate, discussion held round a group of chairs in a café. At the moment - on the public mailing list at least - it is more of a yelled argument over loud music in a bar. I'm not trying to tell ALAC what to do, and I realise that saying all this comes across as yet more criticism piled on top of a constant stream of criticism, but it does concern me and so I feel obliged to raise it. Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:40 PM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break Kieren McCarthy ha scritto: -
democracy - those representatives are voted in, and can be voted out in periodic elections. This is the model that ALAC follows - or should be following - if it is to provide useful policy input.
I tend to disagree on this, for at least two reasons. One is specific - the ALAC also has an internal mailing list, which committee members heavily use; in fact, most of the discussions inside the group tend to happen on the internal list rather than on this one. So I don't see how any level of noise on this list can hamper the ALAC's ability to work - in fact, in the model you expose, ALAC members could just ignore this list altogether. The other one is philosophical - even if I was one of the people who designed this model, and even if one of the reasons for it was also to provide an intermediate, representative point where votes could be taken, you can't just conclude that the ALAC has a blank mandate to do and say whatever they like without consulting on each issue and only being accountable when needing reelection. This traditional, 19th century model is in deep crisis almost everywhere in the world. Increasingly, people are unwilling to delegate to intermediate bureaucracy layers. The Internet is the place where this happens more than everywhere else, as things tend to happen by consensus and in several cases there is no real authority unless it is continuously recognized by the bottom. If your problem is that you want messages by Mr. Williams to be filtered out, let the ALAC adopt netiquette rules under which his messages, as well as those by anyone else, can be judged. But this does not imply shutting down lines of dialogue between the ALAC and its constituents. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Kieren and all my friends, Perhaps you are forgetting or are not aware, most of the participants on this ALAC forum have been involved with ICANN for a long time and have heard/read most of the positions which have not changed much sense 1999. So I haven't read yet anything "Knee Jerk" in nature at all. Building consensus is VERY difficult when multiple strongly held points of view and/or philophisies/positions are in play and the very nature of doing consensus building is often interspersed with contention and is by nature adversarial. Ergo if the nature of any position, idea, or policy consideration is not broadly recognized clearly, than it does not have consensus. If the persuasiveness of any of same is articulated adequately or in a superior manner and recognized clearly, than broad consensus exists. This is in brief, the nature of consensus building... One must understand that we all live in an adversarial world and adversarial is not a bad thing, but rather is a good thing for without adversity, there would be few if any challanges and fewer new ideas by which we can all grow from the knowing of, and debating about. We also must remember that consensus must be measured to be truthfully and honestly existing... And IMO it is this lack of process that has plagued ICANN and shall continue to do so with likely ever increasing intensity until this problem is rectified. And BTW, means of doing so are redily avaliable and in use elsewhere. Kieren McCarthy wrote:
Hi Vittorio, all
My main point is this: how can I see the lines of discussion within ALAC? How do I see policy forming, and how can I have input into that?
My job is to get people involved in ICANN. In many cases that is someone with an interest in what we do but who needs to be helped and pulled into the process - of whom I met many during this recent meeting.
I can't point them to an internal mailing list. And, as it is at the moment, I wouldn't want to subject people to the At Large public mailing list.
I know there are lots of people working very hard in ALAC and in the RALOs to make this kind of review and interaction happen, and I have seen the many wiki pages and mailing lists that work to make this information readily available (I think the IDN page is possibly the best: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy), but at the moment it stills feels too spread apart and too insular.
This is not a criticism of the hard work people are doing, it is simply an outside observation.
At the moment, because I simply do not have time to sign up to and review all the different mailing lists, I use the At Large mailing list to keep track of what is going on.
What you find on that list however - in a similar way to the GA list - is a very aggressive and negative forum dominated by a small number of people who are likely to scare off genuine participants that wish to know more.
In essence, the public mailing list is ALAC's public face, and it is not a very pleasant one to look at.
There is also the issue that the adversarial approach on the list is the antithesis of what ICANN purports to be - a consensus-building body. It creates exactly the wrong sort of atmosphere and, I believe, damages the careful co-operative links built up between people.
In tolerating instinctive knee-jerk criticism, people who work hard are put on the defensive and in so doing are demoralized from providing their time and energies in the future.
Consensus building should be the equivalent of intelligent, if occasionally passionate, discussion held round a group of chairs in a café. At the moment - on the public mailing list at least - it is more of a yelled argument over loud music in a bar.
I'm not trying to tell ALAC what to do, and I realise that saying all this comes across as yet more criticism piled on top of a constant stream of criticism, but it does concern me and so I feel obliged to raise it.
Kieren
----------------------
Kieren McCarthy
----------------------
General manager of public participation, ICANN
-----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:40 PM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break
Every decision-making organ in the history of the world has relied on the use of representatives to put forward the views of a large number of people. That larger group of people then seek to persuade the representatives of their point and ask them to enter it into discussions.
In the most effective form of accountability and representativeness so far
Kieren McCarthy ha scritto: -
democracy - those representatives are voted in, and can be voted out in periodic elections. This is the model that ALAC follows - or should be following - if it is to provide useful policy input.
I tend to disagree on this, for at least two reasons.
One is specific - the ALAC also has an internal mailing list, which committee members heavily use; in fact, most of the discussions inside the group tend to happen on the internal list rather than on this one. So I don't see how any level of noise on this list can hamper the ALAC's ability to work - in fact, in the model you expose, ALAC members could just ignore this list altogether.
The other one is philosophical - even if I was one of the people who designed this model, and even if one of the reasons for it was also to provide an intermediate, representative point where votes could be taken, you can't just conclude that the ALAC has a blank mandate to do and say whatever they like without consulting on each issue and only being accountable when needing reelection. This traditional, 19th century model is in deep crisis almost everywhere in the world. Increasingly, people are unwilling to delegate to intermediate bureaucracy layers. The Internet is the place where this happens more than everywhere else, as things tend to happen by consensus and in several cases there is no real authority unless it is continuously recognized by the bottom.
If your problem is that you want messages by Mr. Williams to be filtered out, let the ALAC adopt netiquette rules under which his messages, as well as those by anyone else, can be judged. But this does not imply shutting down lines of dialogue between the ALAC and its constituents. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Every decision-making organ in the history of the world has relied on the use of representatives to put forward the views of a large number of people. That larger group of people then seek to persuade the representatives of their point and ask them to enter it into discussions.
In the most effective form of accountability and representativeness so far
OK... HMMM... what a fascinating group of messages... where to start... Perhaps with some facts... ALAC and the RALO Secretariats use an Internal (well behaved and productive) email list, and our work is also done on dedicated Wiki and email lists associated with specific committee or topic working groups... Anyone seeking to contribute to policy and consensus opinion development is more than welcome to join any or all of these... But *please NOTE* they are focused, single purpose and are lead by people who are able to moderate *if* that is required... Most working Groups also run an interactive or dedicated Skype chat channel as well... We do however use and indeed *In My Opinion* require, a place for wider NON ALAC and ALS opinion within ICANN to be sort and this AT-LARGE list serves (difference in noise to information ratios from time to time considered) that purpose... However simple this concept is, those who are observers here need to recognise that this list is NOT an "ALAC list" per se it is a public list tool the ALAC, the RALO's and the ALS's *can and do* use for outreach .... One Tool Amongst Many... Yes... Any list can be moderated and we can impose codes of conduct... BUT SURELY ... We would be better to accept the diversity of views and opinions, conduct ourselves with self imposed courtesy, and in fact allow this list tool to do what it is meant and envisaged to do-> Allow for wider Public / At-Large input... And lists such as this, are NOT the only way this can be done... Finally (and I would like to think this could end the thread) the lack of it, or the use of it in a selective way does not, in my view greatly benefit any of us... Kindest regards, CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Monday, 18 February 2008 8:10 PM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Give it a break Kieren McCarthy ha scritto: -
democracy - those representatives are voted in, and can be voted out in periodic elections. This is the model that ALAC follows - or should be following - if it is to provide useful policy input.
I tend to disagree on this, for at least two reasons. One is specific - the ALAC also has an internal mailing list, which committee members heavily use; in fact, most of the discussions inside the group tend to happen on the internal list rather than on this one. So I don't see how any level of noise on this list can hamper the ALAC's ability to work - in fact, in the model you expose, ALAC members could just ignore this list altogether. The other one is philosophical - even if I was one of the people who designed this model, and even if one of the reasons for it was also to provide an intermediate, representative point where votes could be taken, you can't just conclude that the ALAC has a blank mandate to do and say whatever they like without consulting on each issue and only being accountable when needing reelection. This traditional, 19th century model is in deep crisis almost everywhere in the world. Increasingly, people are unwilling to delegate to intermediate bureaucracy layers. The Internet is the place where this happens more than everywhere else, as things tend to happen by consensus and in several cases there is no real authority unless it is continuously recognized by the bottom. If your problem is that you want messages by Mr. Williams to be filtered out, let the ALAC adopt netiquette rules under which his messages, as well as those by anyone else, can be judged. But this does not imply shutting down lines of dialogue between the ALAC and its constituents. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Vittorio and all my friends, Filtering or censoring is inherently wrong, but I realize and any reasonable person would, that your long standing position in favor of Censorship is, and has been, a detriment to what philosophically the Internet is all about, and surely what any At-Large/ALAC should be about, internal mailing list not withstanding. So from a user stand point, ICANN, and it seems now perhaps the ALAC will never be representative or accountable to anybody but a very few "Selected" participants. If Selective Censorship becomes a part of the ALAC as it has ICANN to a very great degree the ALAC shall fail users all over the world. That indeed would be a shame... So I tend to agree with Kieren to that extent. And BTW Kieren, I do believe this is a very substative issue! I hope you and everyone of good conscience, do as well. Maybe someday those that seek to exclude will learn the error in their ways. At least I, for one of many and growing, do hope so... Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Kieren McCarthy ha scritto:
Every decision-making organ in the history of the world has relied on the use of representatives to put forward the views of a large number of people. That larger group of people then seek to persuade the representatives of their point and ask them to enter it into discussions.
In the most effective form of accountability and representativeness so far - democracy - those representatives are voted in, and can be voted out in periodic elections. This is the model that ALAC follows - or should be following - if it is to provide useful policy input.
I tend to disagree on this, for at least two reasons.
One is specific - the ALAC also has an internal mailing list, which committee members heavily use; in fact, most of the discussions inside the group tend to happen on the internal list rather than on this one. So I don't see how any level of noise on this list can hamper the ALAC's ability to work - in fact, in the model you expose, ALAC members could just ignore this list altogether.
The other one is philosophical - even if I was one of the people who designed this model, and even if one of the reasons for it was also to provide an intermediate, representative point where votes could be taken, you can't just conclude that the ALAC has a blank mandate to do and say whatever they like without consulting on each issue and only being accountable when needing reelection. This traditional, 19th century model is in deep crisis almost everywhere in the world. Increasingly, people are unwilling to delegate to intermediate bureaucracy layers. The Internet is the place where this happens more than everywhere else, as things tend to happen by consensus and in several cases there is no real authority unless it is continuously recognized by the bottom.
If your problem is that you want messages by Mr. Williams to be filtered out, let the ALAC adopt netiquette rules under which his messages, as well as those by anyone else, can be judged. But this does not imply shutting down lines of dialogue between the ALAC and its constituents. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Dear Danny, Evan, and Veni, Thank you for these candid positions of yours. This is right. I agree 100% with ... each of you. Each of you have your own perspective and a correct solution for that perspective. This fully shows that the question is "which ALAC within which ICANN". The past ICANN denied @large, downgrading them from 50% BoD to a DNSO/GA dispute. This was partly my fault because I accepted to participate in the IDNO only, instead of pushing for @large and only @large. Also because I forgot to renew "atlarge.org" and was unable to get it back in order to build the distributed organization that I wanted and that ALAC is now building. Thanksfully, Esther Dyson spent some of her money to keep @large within ICANN, while we went to the WSIS. The situation we inherited This makes today two "user at large" structures in the Internet Governance: IGF and ALAC. The same goes for Govs with two: UN and GAC. The same applies with the IETF and ISO/ITU/SSDOs. Every country but the USA has a national community trustee (ccTLD Manager with its own kind of local user relation - a real life notion US citizens do not share with us, as we do not perceive ICANN as they do). ICANN has SO and constituencies, WSIS has enhanced cooperation and dynamic coalitions. ICANN is based on an "Internet community" (what is it today?), and WSIS is based on five poles on an equal footing: civil society, private sector, regalian domain, international entities, and technical/normative community (each of them being still to beter anlyse and define). ICANN wants to coordinate/delegate ccTLDs, WSIS says they are sovereign. The Tunis (US[unanimous Congress] and rest of the world) agreement is that the Legacy Internet is managed by the USA, the emerging issues and critical Internet resources are also analyzed within the IGF and globally addressed by the enhanced cooperation (still to be defined). None of these entities is stable or mature today because the mission of the Internet as defined by the IETF (RFC 3935) and by the WSIS (Tunis declaration) are different. If we oppose, it is not that we are opposing as to how to solve, but on what we want, due to their technical constraints. The architectural context To keep it short let's say that the legacy Internet is a single network of networks while the WSIS actually calls for a diversity of networks of the network of networks. In other terms, - first the networks were Host centric: centralized architecture and governance. - Louis Pouzin proposed the catenet concept: the network of networks, Vint Cerft made the network centric Internet: decentralized (RFC 3935) architecture and governance. - what the WSIS consensus demands is a people centric Internet: distributed architecture that the IETF also faces through IDNs and convergence. This implies a distributed governance (intergovernance) that ICANN is to manage in using ALAC. The options are clear and they concern technical as well as general governances: - balkanization: users start addressing their problems by themselves. I think this is too late to prevent, but we can use this positively. - opposition between an ICANN unilateralism and WSIS multilateralism. I fear most of the people are still there. - understanding that the ICANN/IETF is singular where the WSIS/IGF is plural, and understand/test they are complementary, can smmothly transition, and how to make it work. Your positions You reflect three main different positions: 1) from an US legacy Internet point of view: North American users' specific interests are not properly protected. gTLDs actually are various US TLDs, and ICANN the missing USNIC. This means that (a) they mostly affect and can be litigated, or speech acted upon, by US citizens having access to the Californian law (b) while non US citizens can only hope they have no problem, or their Gov places some pressure on the USG to place some pressure on ICANN. 2) from the rest of the Internet: world point of view: The (US) Internet is the current data network of the world digital ecosystem (Tunis followed the US Congress). Together with it comes the duty to manage it for the whole world, in the way of the world. Veni is right. But, there is a major issue: the expectations are not the same, and as a result, the USA and ICANN would have everything to lose. 3) from an ALAC opportunity point of view: ALAC is now here, but not ready yet. It is for ICANN the only and proper tool, to interface the IGF and advise the BoD as to how to steer in shallow waters where the majority would like to get rid of ICANN. It is very urgent that: - it fully undertsands its role of local/specialized liaisons and the effective internet. - it becomes operationnal in understanding who is who and who supports what. - helps ICANN to adapt. My proposition towards a possible consensus 1) reducing the technical limitations. Because the Internet is a single global system, there is no possible win/lose situation, only win/win and lose/lose ones. There cannot be several Internets, but many diversified ways to manage its use to meet the diversity of needs. Unfortunately, TCP/IP lacks an OSI "presentation" layer that would permit it to support all the WSIS expectations off-the-shelf. IETF has no clue about it. WSIS has not realized yet that it was missing. Therefore, this is the point to be addressed. I think it can be addressed, hopefully not in disorder. It resolution, however will deeply question ICANN's role, as there will be the need for one an ICANN or one ICANN representation per presentation: a French representaion of the Internet can be totally uncoupled from an English one. To better understand this and how it should work please refer to the last part of the ICANN ICP-3 document (http://icann.org/www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm). 2) addressing Danny, Evan, and Veni's demands. The strategy that the WSIS implied and the strategy ICANN seems to follow could just lead to that. But this has to be better analyzed, and ICANN must better define what it wants and describe it "in WSIS terms", for the IGF to understand it, rather than in "Internet community terms", which leave the WSIS community uncertain. (a) ICANN MUST survive. It must transition to what it actually is: the US people and industry International Internet Agency with close ties with the countries wanting it. For a while, Internet stability will still depend on the stability of the DNS ICANN root zone. (b) National/Regional/Private ICANN will emerge. Because the Tunis consensus and the digital convergence imply it: ICANN and IETF have difficulties with languages, how could they support TV, Radio, e-Government, Social Security, RFIDs, etc. international networks. China is already parallel to ICANN. All this will result in an intergovernance where ALAC is to provide ICANN local interfaces. (c) an enhanced cooperation MUST develop quickly, because problems are urgent, or they will be addressed in disorder and we will have an Internet no more, but rather an InterNAT. BoD Member's COI problem, Registrar's cheating, etc. are important but local. IPv6 or/and multi-level addressing, addressing plans, routing, testing, netcontrol, heterarchic naming management, access coverage, financing, bandwdith management, security, cultural and linguistic diversity support, interoperability, new developments (metadata, semantics, integrated micropayments, smart network services, etc.) are strategic issues where ALS must concert and be informed, so they can inform their local community. The ALAC Summit IMHO there is a real urgency to complete the "ALACv2" creation. The reason why is that there are too many needs that are technicaly unsatisfied (CIR, IDNs, diversity, and semantics) by CANN/IETF. This is the role of ALAC to liaise, report, and propose a concerted approach with their solutions that will locally emerge. This is why, if ICANN could not budget a Paris ALAC summit france@large: - invites every ALAC participant and interested @large friend to an open summit in Paris on June 21/22, at their own expense. We will manage to find a room for their meeting. - suggests that @large people try to organize @large micro-meetings in parallel of every Internet, IGF, and Open Source event. - proposes its http://wikicann.org (intended to prepare for the Paris ALAC summit) to document ICANN and ALAC to our national Internet communities, in our local language and terms. I am willing to accept the three of you, Kiernen,and Nick among the initial contrbutors. So, instead of disputing, we can start working together (we have to determine a simple multiconsensus oriented gentlemen's agreement). Our current priorities In so doing, we should have, IMHO, at least three priorities: - to know each other better - not to "sell ICANN" but rather to protect our national Internet community's best interests (same as Danny for the USA), and to determine how can ICANN can best help. For example: the euro-IGF has been voted by the EU parliament. Would it be good for us that ICANN be able to participate, and how? - to build a strategic vision (I gave mine) of ICANN that we want to support, and to get it approved by the BoD. Comments are welcome. jfc
JFC and all my friends, Your argument falls apart at the point you assume that ICANN is unilateral, which it clearly is not, and that the ICANN/IETF are singular, which as and IETF member of many years clearly is not and never has been singular. After this, the remainder of your argument falls to dust in reality. But indeed there is clearly a perception problem as you rightly state, and that perception problem in your argument below is of your own making and factually an empty vessel. None the less a well worded Straw man argument JFC! >:) JFC Morfin wrote:
Dear Danny, Evan, and Veni, Thank you for these candid positions of yours. This is right. I agree 100% with ... each of you. Each of you have your own perspective and a correct solution for that perspective. This fully shows that the question is "which ALAC within which ICANN".
The past
ICANN denied @large, downgrading them from 50% BoD to a DNSO/GA dispute. This was partly my fault because I accepted to participate in the IDNO only, instead of pushing for @large and only @large. Also because I forgot to renew "atlarge.org" and was unable to get it back in order to build the distributed organization that I wanted and that ALAC is now building. Thanksfully, Esther Dyson spent some of her money to keep @large within ICANN, while we went to the WSIS.
The situation we inherited
This makes today two "user at large" structures in the Internet Governance: IGF and ALAC. The same goes for Govs with two: UN and GAC. The same applies with the IETF and ISO/ITU/SSDOs. Every country but the USA has a national community trustee (ccTLD Manager with its own kind of local user relation - a real life notion US citizens do not share with us, as we do not perceive ICANN as they do). ICANN has SO and constituencies, WSIS has enhanced cooperation and dynamic coalitions. ICANN is based on an "Internet community" (what is it today?), and WSIS is based on five poles on an equal footing: civil society, private sector, regalian domain, international entities, and technical/normative community (each of them being still to beter anlyse and define).
ICANN wants to coordinate/delegate ccTLDs, WSIS says they are sovereign.
The Tunis (US[unanimous Congress] and rest of the world) agreement is that the Legacy Internet is managed by the USA, the emerging issues and critical Internet resources are also analyzed within the IGF and globally addressed by the enhanced cooperation (still to be defined).
None of these entities is stable or mature today because the mission of the Internet as defined by the IETF (RFC 3935) and by the WSIS (Tunis declaration) are different. If we oppose, it is not that we are opposing as to how to solve, but on what we want, due to their technical constraints.
The architectural context
To keep it short let's say that the legacy Internet is a single network of networks while the WSIS actually calls for a diversity of networks of the network of networks. In other terms,
- first the networks were Host centric: centralized architecture and governance.
- Louis Pouzin proposed the catenet concept: the network of networks, Vint Cerft made the network centric Internet: decentralized (RFC 3935) architecture and governance.
- what the WSIS consensus demands is a people centric Internet: distributed architecture that the IETF also faces through IDNs and convergence. This implies a distributed governance (intergovernance) that ICANN is to manage in using ALAC.
The options are clear and they concern technical as well as general governances:
- balkanization: users start addressing their problems by themselves. I think this is too late to prevent, but we can use this positively.
- opposition between an ICANN unilateralism and WSIS multilateralism. I fear most of the people are still there.
- understanding that the ICANN/IETF is singular where the WSIS/IGF is plural, and understand/test they are complementary, can smmothly transition, and how to make it work.
Your positions
You reflect three main different positions:
1) from an US legacy Internet point of view:
North American users' specific interests are not properly protected. gTLDs actually are various US TLDs, and ICANN the missing USNIC. This means that (a) they mostly affect and can be litigated, or speech acted upon, by US citizens having access to the Californian law (b) while non US citizens can only hope they have no problem, or their Gov places some pressure on the USG to place some pressure on ICANN.
2) from the rest of the Internet: world point of view:
The (US) Internet is the current data network of the world digital ecosystem (Tunis followed the US Congress). Together with it comes the duty to manage it for the whole world, in the way of the world. Veni is right. But, there is a major issue: the expectations are not the same, and as a result, the USA and ICANN would have everything to lose.
3) from an ALAC opportunity point of view:
ALAC is now here, but not ready yet. It is for ICANN the only and proper tool, to interface the IGF and advise the BoD as to how to steer in shallow waters where the majority would like to get rid of ICANN. It is very urgent that: - it fully undertsands its role of local/specialized liaisons and the effective internet. - it becomes operationnal in understanding who is who and who supports what. - helps ICANN to adapt.
My proposition towards a possible consensus
1) reducing the technical limitations.
Because the Internet is a single global system, there is no possible win/lose situation, only win/win and lose/lose ones. There cannot be several Internets, but many diversified ways to manage its use to meet the diversity of needs.
Unfortunately, TCP/IP lacks an OSI "presentation" layer that would permit it to support all the WSIS expectations off-the-shelf. IETF has no clue about it. WSIS has not realized yet that it was missing. Therefore, this is the point to be addressed. I think it can be addressed, hopefully not in disorder. It resolution, however will deeply question ICANN's role, as there will be the need for one an ICANN or one ICANN representation per presentation: a French representaion of the Internet can be totally uncoupled from an English one. To better understand this and how it should work please refer to the last part of the ICANN ICP-3 document ( http://icann.org/www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm).
2) addressing Danny, Evan, and Veni's demands.
The strategy that the WSIS implied and the strategy ICANN seems to follow could just lead to that. But this has to be better analyzed, and ICANN must better define what it wants and describe it "in WSIS terms", for the IGF to understand it, rather than in "Internet community terms", which leave the WSIS community uncertain.
(a) ICANN MUST survive. It must transition to what it actually is: the US people and industry International Internet Agency with close ties with the countries wanting it. For a while, Internet stability will still depend on the stability of the DNS ICANN root zone.
(b) National/Regional/Private ICANN will emerge. Because the Tunis consensus and the digital convergence imply it: ICANN and IETF have difficulties with languages, how could they support TV, Radio, e-Government, Social Security, RFIDs, etc. international networks. China is already parallel to ICANN. All this will result in an intergovernance where ALAC is to provide ICANN local interfaces.
(c) an enhanced cooperation MUST develop quickly, because problems are urgent, or they will be addressed in disorder and we will have an Internet no more, but rather an InterNAT. BoD Member's COI problem, Registrar's cheating, etc. are important but local. IPv6 or/and multi-level addressing, addressing plans, routing, testing, netcontrol, heterarchic naming management, access coverage, financing, bandwdith management, security, cultural and linguistic diversity support, interoperability, new developments (metadata, semantics, integrated micropayments, smart network services, etc.) are strategic issues where ALS must concert and be informed, so they can inform their local community.
The ALAC Summit
IMHO there is a real urgency to complete the "ALACv2" creation. The reason why is that there are too many needs that are technicaly unsatisfied (CIR, IDNs, diversity, and semantics) by CANN/IETF. This is the role of ALAC to liaise, report, and propose a concerted approach with their solutions that will locally emerge. This is why, if ICANN could not budget a Paris ALAC summit france@large:
- invites every ALAC participant and interested @large friend to an open summit in Paris on June 21/22, at their own expense. We will manage to find a room for their meeting.
- suggests that @large people try to organize @large micro-meetings in parallel of every Internet, IGF, and Open Source event.
- proposes its http://wikicann.org (intended to prepare for the Paris ALAC summit) to document ICANN and ALAC to our national Internet communities, in our local language and terms. I am willing to accept the three of you, Kiernen,and Nick among the initial contrbutors. So, instead of disputing, we can start working together (we have to determine a simple multiconsensus oriented gentlemen's agreement).
Our current priorities
In so doing, we should have, IMHO, at least three priorities:
- to know each other better
- not to "sell ICANN" but rather to protect our national Internet community's best interests (same as Danny for the USA), and to determine how can ICANN can best help. For example: the euro-IGF has been voted by the EU parliament. Would it be good for us that ICANN be able to participate, and how?
- to build a strategic vision (I gave mine) of ICANN that we want to support, and to get it approved by the BoD.
Comments are welcome. jfc
---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Danny Younger wrote:
Let's start by having a look at the worldwide distribution of registrants in top gTLDs (over which ICANN exerts policy control).
com/net/org/biz/info account for 97,000,000 registrations. Our region holds 65,000,000 of those registrations (fully two-thirds) yet our region has only 3 reps out of fifteen sitting on the ALAC -- a situation which does little to protect our interests.
That depends upon what you consider to be "us". While registrants certainly include members of the public, they also contain within their ranks all of the phishers, spammers, tasters and kiters who prey on the public (not to mention -- though I care about this far less -- trademark holders). It would be interesting to see how many of those 65M registrations are personal and how many -- to use ICANN lingo -- are "monetized". If you succeed in creating a registrants advisory council you will probably find its membership resembles in character the business constituency far more than ALAC. Indeed, one could easily make the case that the BC is effectively a registrants' constituency and is affected as much by issues such as rogue DNS as individual registrants. It thus is no surprise that the BC's position on domain tasting turned out to be closer to ALAC's than the position of NCUC. By most of the definitions I've seen the "us" in ALAC constitutes not just registrants but the 'consumers' of the Internet. In those numbers the US is hardly a majority anymore.
Why are we at this point? Why is it that our region doesn't occupy the vast bulk of the seats on the ALAC? This is purely based on a distribution that reflects "political correctness" moreso than the realities of the marketplace. While I don't agree with the premise (see above), I agree even less that your fight is with or within ALAC. Most of up who signed on understood, and generally accepted, the ground rules in advance.
The ALAC has had countless opportunities to defend the user interest; instead, they have chosen to tacitly discriminate against North Americans by ignoring their immediate and ongoing concerns. That's not totally accurate. I don' think it's a stretch to suggest that NA played a major role in pushing for an aggressive ALAC stand on domain tasting; its position would have been far weaker without our pressing the issue.
The JPA was another example. Dissatisfied with the ALAC's consensus-driven statement that said little in order to please everyone, NARALO endorsed the stronger and specific stance taken by Consumers Union and made separate representation as a region. We're barely a year old and still finding our feet. But we are also finding our voice. If the view of NA does not match the view of the global ALAC -- or finds the need for global consensus-building to create positions that are so weak to be useless -- NARALO will happily advance its own stances. At that point it's a mainly matter of having the internal initiative and volunteer time to do it. In you and Beau we have two excellent resources for this kind of thing.
It doesn't matter how many times someone like Kurt Pritz puts up slides indicating that issues with transfers are a top community concern; the ALAC will continue to stumble along and produce statements on ancillary matters such as IPv4 depletion instead of dealing with the serious problems at hand.
From what I've heard IPV4 depletion is happening faster in some areas than others, so it' s quite possible this is a higher priority elsewhere than in the US. Also... at the top of many public priority lists are the advancement of IDNs -- not only do Americans care little about this issue, arguably they have an interest in stalling it.
It's time for not only an operational overhaul of the ALAC, but more importantly, we need to see a structural overhaul that "weighs" each region and assigns representation that reflects actual current worldwide participation in the DNS. Weighted voting is a reality in the GNSO; it should become the new reality in the ALAC.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. - Evan
Danny and all my friends, "Change" seems to be a very popular word these days! And ICANN has needed Change in leadership and distribution of same in not only the constituencies, GNSO council, and ICANN Board, but as you correctly point out, in the forming ALAC as well, if it succeeds. However Danny, I disagree that the depletion of IPv4 address space is a trivial problem. Hording of IPv4 addresses is where that problem began long ago, and largely remains. That is a problem that the ICANN Board can solve very easily, but are afraid to adversely irritate their major founders, namely the BC and the IPC. Frankly the BC and the IPC own the ICANN board, and largely the GNSO as well, simply because they are footing ICANN's bills for junkets, ect... And for this reason mainly is why our members have opposed the Constituency structure as it was edicted and remains. Change is necessary, major change indeed! And just maybe "Change" is in the offing... Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Danny Younger wrote:
Evan,
I'm more than happy to discuss why the ALAC isn't working and what can be done to correct the situation.
Let's start by having a look at the worldwide distribution of registrants in top gTLDs (over which ICANN exerts policy control).
com/net/org/biz/info account for 97,000,000 registrations. Our region holds 65,000,000 of those registrations (fully two-thirds) yet our region has only 3 reps out of fifteen sitting on the ALAC -- a situation which does little to protect our interests.
So when rogue registrars impact the DNS our region feels the brunt of it while the bulk of the ALAC members could care less as they tend to live mostly in the ccTLD world.
Why are we at this point? Why is it that our region doesn't occupy the vast bulk of the seats on the ALAC? This is purely based on a distribution that reflects "political correctness" moreso than the realities of the marketplace. That may be acceptable to civil society types that only comment on the lists as the time approaches for another IGF session; it's not acceptable to most North Americans that continue to be affected by damaging gTLD registrar behaviors, and who are counting upon those in ICANN to deliver results.
The ALAC has had countless opportunities to defend the user interest; instead, they have chosen to tacitly discriminate against North Americans by ignoring their immediate and ongoing concerns.
It doesn't matter how many times someone like Kurt Pritz puts up slides indicating that issues with transfers are a top community concern; the ALAC will continue to stumble along and produce statements on ancillary matters such as IPv4 depletion instead of dealing with the serious problems at hand.
It's time for not only an operational overhaul of the ALAC, but more importantly, we need to see a structural overhaul that "weighs" each region and assigns representation that reflects actual current worldwide participation in the DNS. Weighted voting is a reality in the GNSO; it should become the new reality in the ALAC.
If that means that North America will be assigned 66 percent of reps on the ALAC at this point in time -- so be it. At some point soon the balance will switch to Asia, and when that happens I would expect the weighting to be changed to relect the new mix.
The politically correct distribution that we suffer under has not worked out. A change is most certainly in order.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
participants (12)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline Morris -
Jeffrey A. Williams -
JFC Morfin -
John L -
Kieren McCarthy -
Thompson, Darlene -
Veni Markovski -
Vittorio Bertola