On 30 August 2011 11:21, <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

...

IMHO, item 4 deals with what happens if the ALAC rejects the proposal. The liaison reports back to the group and then we start back on Item #1 (wash, lather, repeat as needed).

As Even's already pointed out, a referal of "pre-registration" to ALAC

is a waste of time. That couldn't be further from an accurate interpretation of what I said. I indicated that my efforts to advance the issue -- at a preliminary level, and with my admittedly limited background in the field -- received pushback. Not outright rejection. Not even the issue coming up as part of an ALAC meeting agenda. Some people pointed out that it would be bad tactics to assert this as an issue of "fraud", which in most parts of the earth has a specific legal definition that would exclude activities for which no money has exchanged hands. This feedback simply indicates that we have a challenge of tactics and information, and that the public-interest component of this issue is not as obvious to all as other issues. You can't have it both ways. One can't bemoan that the ALAC is an uncritical rubber stamp for the agendas of its elite, only to recoil when its members demonstrate either an acknowledged lack of awareness or a critical eye. If we can't convince the members of ALAC that pre-registration is a real problem then, maybe, it isn't. While we in NARALO have been active beyond our numbers in At-Large policy development, we are not the sole sources on Earth of wise judgment regarding what constitutes the public interest. Sulking about the issue is not helpful. Whining about it on Facebook (in a manner that implies members of ALAC are corrupt) is even less so. OTOH, some of us took the opportunity to listen to the pushback and learn from it. - First, to get rid of the "fraud" characterization because that's at best iffy and at worst an excuse for vested interests to dismiss our efforts. An activity need not be legally defined fraud to be against the public interest - Then, it helps to look at a buyer-beware approach -- an education and information tactical solution -- as one that is easier (and certainly faster) compared than regulation or prohibition. In that light, I've been in contact with ICANN's communications folks who have been eyeing the issue and are delighted to have support from within At-Large -- any support -- for their efforts to call attention to this. It's not enough just to be aware of the issue. In ICANN, community-building is an important part of any solution to a problem. Having contrary ideas and opinions are fine, but actively belittling and talking down to others is a speedy way to get ignored regardless of your own personal wisdom. Cynicism? Welcome to the club. Antagonism? Go away. - Evan PS: Misspelling my name once is a typo. Repeating the misspelling is deliberate.