Danny Younger wrote:
Frankly, I haven't seen you or your organizations offering any written advise on any topic whatsoever.
In spite of all these non-contributions, you seem to be gung-ho to set up this organization. Why?
This isn't helpful. Lack of participation in the past should not serve as an obstacle to participation in the present or future, especially since part of this debate is about localization -- allowance for community consultation in local language -- that may provide better input in the long run. The whole point of the RALO level of structure/bureaucracy, as I understand it, is to allow at large groups to work locally and aggregate grassroots-level points of view before getting to the top level. If that's the case then there is indeed a rationale behind designing the forum properly _before_ a coherent statement can come out of it. In any case, this is a low-risk effort. The worst that can happen is that a RALO is created in the way Robert and Luc and others want, and nothing happens after that. THEN you can complain about non-action. But for now, arguing that a forum shouldn't be created because its proponents because haven't yet made policy conclusions seems a bit backwards to me. Personally, I believe that RALOs should make every effort to internally work in whatever languages are practical to work with (while still enabling proper debate), but that the interface to ICANN still needs to be in English only. Evan Leibovitch Executive Director CLUE - The Canadian Association for Open Source www.cluecan.ca