Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
Jacque and all, Indeed language translation is a barrior to some users, yet English is the boradly excepted international language and has been nearly all of my lifetime. Additionally language translation software is readily avaliable and has been for at least 5 or 6 years that I am aware of. So the lack of being able to cope with the differences in language is a weak argument at best. Try again! As for the elderly aunt or taxi driver dogma, we, INRGroup, have members from all walks of like and means of employment. All are registrants. We have only a few that are actuall taxi drivers that I know of, I believe the last count was 12. We have a healthy number of elderly members that are over 65, and 4 or 5 that are 100 or slightly older. Yet ICANN doesn't seem to be all that interested in hearing from them for whatever reasons, some of which in the past have been stated by leaders of the registry constituency and the IPC very clearly and with much disdane I might add. That's not exceptable, and should never be exceptable. The RIAA comes to mind in specific here as a member of the IPC. As such, we have been calling for the IPC to revoke the RIAA's membership accordingly as a solution. So no, I don't see your agrument with Danny as being all that convincing at all... And certainly is not convincing to any of our members. -----Original Message-----
From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> Sent: Apr 14, 2008 1:12 PM To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
Well Danny I'm unaware of any RALOs that have been in existence more than 6 years. The oldest has been in existence for 18 months or so, and has not been able to participate meaningfully yet as LAC isn't English speaking, and the information given to us is almost all in English, so pretty much there's little that can happen there. NARALO is more active, as it doesn't have the language barrier, and doesn't have to wait for documents to be translated, like LACRALO, & AFRI-RALO. If you check the ALS listing, most haven't been involved for more than 2 years either. So, we obviously aren't the people to whom you are directing this.
I also venture that people who write blogs on ICANN subjects are not broadly representative of the General Public. So reading those blogs probably won't fulfill the mandate to get the public involved.
How long have the working groups been formed? Has any information been posted in Spanish or Portuguese so that LAC volunteers can join in? Personally, I'd be loathe to join a working group that is discussing a series of technical documents in a language that I can't read! What would be the point of that? Probably would be a giant waste of time for all involved. So, if the documents are translated in time for me to read them and the system is set up so that I can respond in my own language and have my opinions taken into consideration, it would be far more likely that I would join a WG. OF course, the WG would also have to be on a topic that was affecting me or people I knew in my region. Or maybe even something I might be interested in from a pure intellectual curiosity standpoint. But it would have to gain my interest somehow before I'd join.
I think you are definitely confusing the NCUC academic research people with the general public. Academics whose work is in the field of Internet Governance are far more likely to do research in the area, duh. Consumer organizations are also likely to do so, and there's a lot of outreach in the at Large towards those. The taxi driver who has a facebook page, or my aunt with her yahoo email are less likely to participate in meaningful research, except as directed by others.
Jacqueline -------------------------------------------------- From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:39 PM To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>; "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>; "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they could easily be reading the relevant news articles and blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring organizational representatives into their midst on a periodic basis just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the necessary surveys and polls.
But opinion alone is not what ICANN is after.
They want real solutions to real problems... that means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to engage in research, to declare their findings based upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations based upon the findings.
As this hasn't been happening and as there is no likelihood that this will ever happen (just look at all the empty Working Groups), the ALAC has no continuing purpose.
Organizations with no continuing purpose (like the former Protocol Supporting Organization) that drain ICANN's financial resources should most certainly be discontinued.
Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does happen, where findings are noted, and where policy recommendations do emerge.
It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed experiment. The PSO was discontinued after two years, the GNSO General Assembly was discontinued as a representative unit after four years -- you've had more than ample time to prove the worth of the ALAC/RALO model, and the model has failed to get the job done.
I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this rathole.
--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
Danny,
Actually, I would have to agree with your statement, "The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only a passing interest on an occasional topic; they have no deep commitment to defend those that they purportedly represent." This goes right to the heart of what Jacqueline was saying. ALSs are not registrants. ICANN wants public opinion on stuff that the public, over all, has only a passing interest in.
So, how do we get more public interest in this (and I DON'T mean registrant interest - I mean John Q Public)? What are your suggestions on how to improve things, rather than just pointing out where everybody else is failing?
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:30 AM To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
Darlene,
The Summit Questionnaire was just finalized and the 15 areas of interest cited all relate to information that can readily be found through ICANN's homepage.
Sufficient information is out there already for those that care about DNS issues.
The answer is not to be found in creating a DNS for Dummies series in which 2 brief pages cover each issue -- if that approach is taken then all you will wind up with is something as useless as the "Guide to the DNS for End Users" that was prepared by an ICANN consultant.
Show me one relevant area that an ALS cares about for which sufficient information is lacking.
Information is out there for those that wish to seek it out. You seek to explain ALS non-performance, non-involvement, and non-engagement on the basis of a lack of educational materials. I don't buy the argument.
The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only a passing interest on an occasional topic; they have no deep commitment to defend those that they purportedly represent.
Consider the IPC that aggressively acts to protect the interests of the intellectual property crowd. By contrast, the bulk of the ALSs have no interest in protecting us -- and that is not something that a Reader's Digest condensed version of an issue will cure.
--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
Well, OF COURSE the registrant community (in the US, anyways) responded to the RegisterFly debacle - it hurt their interests personally. If something affects me personally, I read up on it and respond, as well. If it doesn't I might not.
ALSs are generally non-profit organizations run by people putting in hugely long numbers of hours dealing with their work. They don't sit behind a desk and have huge amounts of time to go finding stuff and working on stuff that doesn't affect them (or their jobs) directly. You must have tons more time at work to read this stuff than the entire ALS community put together. We all have jobs that actually take up huge portions of our time/life.
When the Canadian ALSs signed up, we were told that easier to digest information would be soon coming out. As Nick has reported there have been various impediments to this but that it should "soon" be coming. Once this is available, then I would suggest that the NARALO do, maybe, a weekly informational e-mailing on one subject to all ALSs - both for their info and for their web sites.
In stating, "The problem isn't that ALSs aren't being properly educated; the problem is that ALSs are not the at-large. The real At-Large cares, reacts and responds; they don't." That is really wrong. The At-Large does care - about those issues that affect them. Comparing them to a registrant that has just had the plug pulled on their web site is completely misleading.
So, what issues do ALSs care about? WELL - that's the information we need to get out to them. What is happening that they should care about? What response is needed? Put out information such as that, and we will get more input.
Constant negativity sure won't help, though.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:32 AM To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
Re: "How can we punish or even expect anything at all out of ALSs that haven't been educated?"
When these organizations signed up they agreed to (1) distribute information on ICANN activities and issues, (2) enable discussions among their members on the issues; and (3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions.
The ICANN website currently contains information on:
=== message truncated ===
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Language translations software is crap. I've seen some of the "translated" e-mails that you have sent to the group and they are unreadable. Also, if your imaginary group has imaginary members from all walks of life, well CUDOS! The more the merrier! Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:28 PM To: Jacqueline A. Morris; Nick Ashton-Hart; info@ipc.org Cc: avri@acm.org; twomey@icann.org; aheineman@ntia.doc.gov; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft AccountabilityFramework andConflicts of Interest Policy Jacque and all, Indeed language translation is a barrior to some users, yet English is the boradly excepted international language and has been nearly all of my lifetime. Additionally language translation software is readily avaliable and has been for at least 5 or 6 years that I am aware of. So the lack of being able to cope with the differences in language is a weak argument at best. Try again! As for the elderly aunt or taxi driver dogma, we, INRGroup, have members from all walks of like and means of employment. All are registrants. We have only a few that are actuall taxi drivers that I know of, I believe the last count was 12. We have a healthy number of elderly members that are over 65, and 4 or 5 that are 100 or slightly older. Yet ICANN doesn't seem to be all that interested in hearing from them for whatever reasons, some of which in the past have been stated by leaders of the registry constituency and the IPC very clearly and with much disdane I might add. That's not exceptable, and should never be exceptable. The RIAA comes to mind in specific here as a member of the IPC. As such, we have been calling for the IPC to revoke the RIAA's membership accordingly as a solution. So no, I don't see your agrument with Danny as being all that convincing at all... And certainly is not convincing to any of our members. -----Original Message-----
From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> Sent: Apr 14, 2008 1:12 PM To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
Well Danny I'm unaware of any RALOs that have been in existence more than 6 years. The oldest has been in existence for 18 months or so, and has not been able to participate meaningfully yet as LAC isn't English speaking, and the information given to us is almost all in English, so pretty much there's little that can happen there. NARALO is more active, as it doesn't have the language barrier, and doesn't have to wait for documents to be translated, like LACRALO, & AFRI-RALO. If you check the ALS listing, most haven't been involved for more than 2 years either. So, we obviously aren't the people to whom you are directing this.
I also venture that people who write blogs on ICANN subjects are not broadly representative of the General Public. So reading those blogs probably won't fulfill the mandate to get the public involved.
How long have the working groups been formed? Has any information been posted in Spanish or Portuguese so that LAC volunteers can join in? Personally, I'd be loathe to join a working group that is discussing a series of technical documents in a language that I can't read! What would be the point of that? Probably would be a giant waste of time for all involved. So, if the documents are translated in time for me to read them and the
system is set up so that I can respond in my own language and have my opinions taken into consideration, it would be far more likely that I would join a WG. OF course, the WG would also have to be on a topic that was
affecting me or people I knew in my region. Or maybe even something I might be interested in from a pure intellectual curiosity standpoint. But it would have to gain my interest somehow before I'd join.
I think you are definitely confusing the NCUC academic research people with the general public. Academics whose work is in the field of Internet Governance are far more likely to do research in the area, duh. Consumer organizations are also likely to do so, and there's a lot of outreach in the at Large towards those. The taxi driver who has a facebook page, or my aunt with her yahoo email are less likely to participate in meaningful research, except as directed by others.
Jacqueline -------------------------------------------------- From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:39 PM To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>; "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>; "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they could easily be reading the relevant news articles and blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring organizational representatives into their midst on a periodic basis just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the necessary surveys and polls.
But opinion alone is not what ICANN is after.
They want real solutions to real problems... that means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to engage in research, to declare their findings based upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations based upon the findings.
As this hasn't been happening and as there is no likelihood that this will ever happen (just look at all the empty Working Groups), the ALAC has no continuing purpose.
Organizations with no continuing purpose (like the former Protocol Supporting Organization) that drain ICANN's financial resources should most certainly be discontinued.
Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does happen, where findings are noted, and where policy recommendations do emerge.
It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed experiment. The PSO was discontinued after two years, the GNSO General Assembly was discontinued as a representative unit after four years -- you've had more than ample time to prove the worth of the ALAC/RALO model, and the model has failed to get the job done.
I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this rathole.
--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
Danny,
Actually, I would have to agree with your statement, "The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only a passing interest on an occasional topic; they have no deep commitment to defend those that they purportedly represent." This goes right to the heart of what Jacqueline was saying. ALSs are not registrants. ICANN wants public opinion on stuff that the public, over all, has only a passing interest in.
So, how do we get more public interest in this (and I DON'T mean registrant interest - I mean John Q Public)? What are your suggestions on how to improve things, rather than just pointing out where everybody else is failing?
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:30 AM To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
Darlene,
The Summit Questionnaire was just finalized and the 15 areas of interest cited all relate to information that can readily be found through ICANN's homepage.
Sufficient information is out there already for those that care about DNS issues.
The answer is not to be found in creating a DNS for Dummies series in which 2 brief pages cover each issue -- if that approach is taken then all you will wind up with is something as useless as the "Guide to the DNS for End Users" that was prepared by an ICANN consultant.
Show me one relevant area that an ALS cares about for which sufficient information is lacking.
Information is out there for those that wish to seek it out. You seek to explain ALS non-performance, non-involvement, and non-engagement on the basis of a lack of educational materials. I don't buy the argument.
The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only a passing interest on an occasional topic; they have no deep commitment to defend those that they purportedly represent.
Consider the IPC that aggressively acts to protect the interests of the intellectual property crowd. By contrast, the bulk of the ALSs have no interest in protecting us -- and that is not something that a Reader's Digest condensed version of an issue will cure.
--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
Well, OF COURSE the registrant community (in the US, anyways) responded to the RegisterFly debacle - it hurt their interests personally. If something affects me personally, I read up on it and respond, as well. If it doesn't I might not.
ALSs are generally non-profit organizations run by people putting in hugely long numbers of hours dealing with their work. They don't sit behind a desk and have huge amounts of time to go finding stuff and working on stuff that doesn't affect them (or their jobs) directly. You must have tons more time at work to read this stuff than the entire ALS community put together. We all have jobs that actually take up huge portions of our time/life.
When the Canadian ALSs signed up, we were told that easier to digest information would be soon coming out. As Nick has reported there have been various impediments to this but that it should "soon" be coming. Once this is available, then I would suggest that the NARALO do, maybe, a weekly informational e-mailing on one subject to all ALSs - both for their info and for their web sites.
In stating, "The problem isn't that ALSs aren't being properly educated; the problem is that ALSs are not the at-large. The real At-Large cares, reacts and responds; they don't." That is really wrong. The At-Large does care - about those issues that affect them. Comparing them to a registrant that has just had the plug pulled on their web site is completely misleading.
So, what issues do ALSs care about? WELL - that's the information we need to get out to them. What is happening that they should care about? What response is needed? Put out information such as that, and we will get more input.
Constant negativity sure won't help, though.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:32 AM To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
Re: "How can we punish or even expect anything at all out of ALSs that haven't been educated?"
When these organizations signed up they agreed to (1) distribute information on ICANN activities and issues, (2) enable discussions among their members on the issues; and (3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions.
The ICANN website currently contains information on:
=== message truncated ===
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
Jeffrey A. Williams a écrit :
Jacque and all,
Indeed language translation is a barrior to some users, yet English is the boradly excepted international language and has been nearly all of my lifetime. Additionally language translation software is readily avaliable and has been for at least 5 or 6 years that I am aware of. So the lack of being able to cope with the differences in language is a weak argument at best. Try again!
One might find out some differences between cultures, languages, Jeffrey. Try it. Concerning translation software, the running gag in my office is to test the newest translator, to process an inoffensive text from French to English to French again. You always end up with two different stories. The funniest comes up when you pour in what we call «false friends» which is the same word in two different languages with a different meaning. Ex.: «capitation» : a form of contracted dental care (English) or a donation to your favorite church (French). If you don't have a cultural background in both languages, the translation software doesn't have it either. Try harder Jeffrey. Ami calmant !
As for the elderly aunt or taxi driver dogma, we, INRGroup, have members from all walks of like and means of employment. All are registrants. We have only a few that are actuall taxi drivers that I know of, I believe the last count was 12. We have a healthy number of elderly members that are over 65, and 4 or 5 that are 100 or slightly older. Yet ICANN doesn't seem to be all that interested in hearing from them for whatever reasons, some of which in the past have been stated by leaders of the registry constituency and the IPC very clearly and with much disdane I might add. That's not exceptable, and should never be exceptable. The RIAA comes to mind in specific here as a member of the IPC. As such, we have been calling for the IPC to revoke the RIAA's membership accordingly as a solution.
So no, I don't see your agrument with Danny as being all that convincing at all... And certainly is not convincing to any of our members.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> Sent: Apr 14, 2008 1:12 PM To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
Well Danny I'm unaware of any RALOs that have been in existence more than 6 years. The oldest has been in existence for 18 months or so, and has not been able to participate meaningfully yet as LAC isn't English speaking, and the information given to us is almost all in English, so pretty much there's little that can happen there. NARALO is more active, as it doesn't have the language barrier, and doesn't have to wait for documents to be translated, like LACRALO, & AFRI-RALO. If you check the ALS listing, most haven't been involved for more than 2 years either. So, we obviously aren't the people to whom you are directing this.
I also venture that people who write blogs on ICANN subjects are not broadly representative of the General Public. So reading those blogs probably won't fulfill the mandate to get the public involved.
How long have the working groups been formed? Has any information been posted in Spanish or Portuguese so that LAC volunteers can join in? Personally, I'd be loathe to join a working group that is discussing a series of technical documents in a language that I can't read! What would be the point of that? Probably would be a giant waste of time for all involved. So, if the documents are translated in time for me to read them and the system is set up so that I can respond in my own language and have my opinions taken into consideration, it would be far more likely that I would join a WG. OF course, the WG would also have to be on a topic that was affecting me or people I knew in my region. Or maybe even something I might be interested in from a pure intellectual curiosity standpoint. But it would have to gain my interest somehow before I'd join.
I think you are definitely confusing the NCUC academic research people with the general public. Academics whose work is in the field of Internet Governance are far more likely to do research in the area, duh. Consumer organizations are also likely to do so, and there's a lot of outreach in the at Large towards those. The taxi driver who has a facebook page, or my aunt with her yahoo email are less likely to participate in meaningful research, except as directed by others.
Jacqueline -------------------------------------------------- From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:39 PM To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>; "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>; "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they could easily be reading the relevant news articles and blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring organizational representatives into their midst on a periodic basis just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the necessary surveys and polls.
But opinion alone is not what ICANN is after.
They want real solutions to real problems... that means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to engage in research, to declare their findings based upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations based upon the findings.
As this hasn't been happening and as there is no likelihood that this will ever happen (just look at all the empty Working Groups), the ALAC has no continuing purpose.
Organizations with no continuing purpose (like the former Protocol Supporting Organization) that drain ICANN's financial resources should most certainly be discontinued.
Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does happen, where findings are noted, and where policy recommendations do emerge.
It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed experiment. The PSO was discontinued after two years, the GNSO General Assembly was discontinued as a representative unit after four years -- you've had more than ample time to prove the worth of the ALAC/RALO model, and the model has failed to get the job done.
I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this rathole.
--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
participants (3)
-
Jeffrey A. Williams -
Louis Houle -
Thompson, Darlene