Finishing my sentence (sigh) to be sent FORMALLY by our staff to ALAC/ExCom so we can see how late and why etc., CLO (multitasking at a NBN seminar sorry) 2009/5/19 Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>
Evan I would think that this text could in fact be co-signed by the Chairs of leadership of EACH RALO (with a tiny bit of tense tweeking OR they should be encouraged to write letters of support listing each of their ALSes and the numbers of users represented by each if needs be ;-) and I'll certainly ask ALAC to also support but MY name can endorse it regardless... and if that is the case I'll also send a copy to the Board Public Participation Committee for their information/edification as well... I'd also appreciate a copy of the original letter to you along with details of dates etc.,
CLO
2009/5/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>
Hello everyone.
ICANN staffer Maria Farrell recently wrote a letter to the ALAC announce list, scolding At-Large for missing one of ICANN's typical too-tight comment deadlines.
In a moment of pique I wrote the response below. Before I send it in my capacity as NARALO chair, I would like to receive feedback on both its content and appropriateness. Personally I'm simply fed up with complaints like this that we can't play the game as well as the vested interests.
And ... to At-Large staff ... are Maria and other ICANN staffers not alterted in advance when ALAC statements are to be submitted past their deadlines? I thought that was the case,
- Evan
---------------
Maria Farrell wrote:
In the future, I would be most grateful if you could follow the agreed procedure for submitting public comments to an ICANN consultation; i.e. posting them to the correct location within the time agreed. This is the only way to ensure equity between all contributors and allow us to complete the overall process in a timely manner.
I understand that it can be a challenge for diverse groups to get comments agreed in time. However, other contributors with similar internal consensus-building processes to fulfill, including the GAC, various government authorities and trade associations, submit their input on time and/or appraise the relevant staff beforehand if there is going to be an issue.
Hello Maria,
Respectfully, if the above statement conveys your true sentiment then you do not, indeed, understand At-Large.
At-Large, by definition, does not include bodies with financial interest in ICANN outcomes. It has no business models, national interests, or property to protect. Its members primarily do not have English as their first language, let alone the technical jargon that more often than not pervades ICANN policy debate. They do, however, attempt to represent more than 99% of the community affected by ICANN decisions.
During my brief history within At-Large I have seen countless similar misunderstandings of At-Large's most difficult role within ICANN. These misunderstandings are manifested through unrealistic deadlines, and other expectations that are based on the assumption that we can move as quickly as governments and lobbyists with interests to protect. When was that last time that At-Large was ever consulted in advance on whether a deadline was reasonable?
Some of these misunderstandings, arguably, are institutionalized deep within ICANN. To a casual observer, the idea that ICANN's "public participation" mechanism is distinct and separate from the component that works with At-Large is astounding.
If ICANN claims of public transparency and accountability are to be seen as more than a facade, then perhaps it's time to better recognize -- throughout the organization -- that the challanges of At-Large are both different and substantially more complex than those of governments or vested interests.
Sincerely,
Evan Leibovitch Chair, NARALO
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)