Evan, I am not suggesting anything about At-Large itself let alone the importance of the summit. The only thing I am sugesting is a view how the summit organizers who could 'endager' the summit are looking at At-Large. That is what I have understood from the remark. To clarify my point further I am appending another remark from the post "the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff and board to rethink support for the summit at this time" I am optimistic :-) Dominik -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:48 AM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: Robert Guerra; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review Dominik Filipp wrote:
that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could endanger the summit being ok'd
Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be punished? If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted.
I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that most of the people here are acting this way. Some of the stronger supporters of strong NARALO naction on this issue have also been key organizers of the Summit. IMO the Summit is a *necessary* activity of ICANN if it is to prove to outsiders (and especially the US government) that it at least is minimally serious about multi stakeholder involvement. If they can the Summit because of improper comments by some individuals, well than that doubly proves that ICANN does not really care about having an educated and active At-Large. I prefer to stay optimistic until proven otherwise. - Evan