Dear all, While I do neither agree with the tone and the conclusions of Danny Younger's message on the GNSO GA list, I would still like to pick out a sentence which, I think, is partially correct: "the vast bulk of these 66 accredited At-Large structures have had nothing to say on any DNS-related matter at any time nor have offered any written counsel to the Board whatsoever through any other public channels" I am indeed worried that we seem to be more focused on structure than content. Actually, I am yet to see *any* message on this list or the previous one which talks about current issues like whois, news gTLDS, DNSSEC, IPv6 in the root or what have you. Some individuals like Roberto, Vittorio, Wolfgang or Annette have been active through the ALAC or other committees and fora. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we Euralo members voice our concerns so that our European representatives in the ALAC know what the European consensus is. If you have any idea how we could organize ourseleves so that discussions are both inclusive and productive, please post. Best regards, Patrick -------- Original Message -------- Subject: The ALAC Wasteland Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:41:54 -0800 (PST) From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> CC: committee@alac.icann.org Newsgroups: lists.icann.gnso.ga January 15 marked the first time in the last four years that any accredited at-large structure (there are 66 of them currently) ever sent in a written public forum comment on any DNS-related topic whatsoever. That commentary came from John Levine on behalf of CAUCE regarding the work of the WHOIS Task Force. I'd like to begin by thanking John for his personal contribution. Now, let's put the big question on the table: If the vast bulk of these 66 accredited At-Large structures have had nothing to say on any DNS-related matter at any time nor have offered any written counsel to the Board whatsoever through any other public channels, then what continuing purpose in the ICANN structure do these non-contributing bodies serve? Why do we continue to collect ALS applications and continue to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of organizational policy advice that borders on nil? This is mismanagement taken to the extreme. Sure, there's lots of hoopla surrounding the formation of a RALO, but so what? Of what value are any of these constructs if well-considered advice fails to make its way forward to relevant Task Force groups or to the Board? The ALAC endeavor has been a monumental failure from day one that clearly cannot be cured with a dollop of additional time and more financial resources -- they've gotten enough cash and they've had more than enough time to get their act together -- it's time to throw in the towel on this losing proposition. I look at the efforts of the Intellectual Property Lobby and note that they can rally their troops to provide a great deal of thoughtful commentary when the situation so demands. By contrast, the ALAC can't generate a response (even with a $700,000 budget). It has no leadership skills, it has no recognized authority, and it hasn't had any buy-in from the At-Large community. ICANN needs to put this useless dog to sleep. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121