Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Huh. And I was going to suggest YOU, Evan and Luc! :)
I'm flattered, thanks for the consideration. My apologies for being essentially off the list for about a week. Gerry Singleton, CLUE's second NARALO representative and a good friend of mine, (he was involved in the conference call but had to leave early) died suddenly last week. The funeral was on Friday, along with the usual newspaper announcements it was a Facebook event. So I go away for a week, and return after the requisite introspection, and everything-in-its-place contemplation that often happens during times like these, only to return to the cacophony of this list and wonder is this little corner of the world is ever going to get anything done. I haven't totally caught up, but have read enough to respond to a number of different issues. Nick is right in that abstentions never count in a vote -- they indicate that the voters choose not to make a choice, and that's certainly reasonable here considering the great absense of substance in many of these "discussions". We have people voting against _any_ RALO (and campaigning with newcomers to vote no!) until they get their pet causes dealt with -- exactly as they wish -- in the OP at the outset. Apparently, a promise by all to address the concept of representation by individuals once we're started -- along with Randy's group practically _existing_ for the purpose of offering voice to the non-aligned -- isn't enough, so this is now clearly a matter of deliberate obstruction. And we won't even get into the issue of unreasonable legaleze in the MOU. Frankly, I'm not sure I would make a good chair because I'm rapidly losing what patience I had before for those who once had a point, but that point is shrinking fast. There's growing evidence in these threads that the obstructionists are not at all interested in "individual" voices besides their own, and "diversity" is a weapon except when its results don't suit them. The blogs mentioned, which bemoan the RALO structure, have achieved a strange uninitentional pathos. In "reporting" the problems of the European RALO, the complaint is that the "right" ALAC representative wasn't chosen, without for a moment pondering the qualifications of those who _were_. Again, the language of that of obstruction -- if it can't work "our" way, it can't work at all, and we won't even let it try. Sorry for the rant, folks, but freshly coming from the reflection of a friend's funeral only highlights the DELIBERATE dysfunction that some folks here bounce between causing and complaining about. If folks spent a fraction of the energy used to moan about inaction on RegisterFly related issues to actually raise the issues for discussion and help educate the rest of us, we'd actually be able to accomplish the actual advisory purpose many of us came here to do. Instead, complainers come across as simply wanting to destabalize without actually offering anything of value. Look, if you think the RALO system is doomed to fail, or that NARALO is useless, please get out and let the rest of us have a go at it. As much as I appreciate the advice and history of the people who have experience at other ICANN advisory efforts, the defeatist baggage simply isn't worth it. It will be easy enough for the RALO model to fail without active efforts to vandalize it from within. I apologize for the tone of this; I am simply perplexed at the realization that there are folks here who have no interest in making this work, yet have enough time on their hands to hang around and impede those who do. - Evan