ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Review / Comment Periods

  • To: ALAC draft review pub comments <alac-dfir-2008@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Review / Comment Periods
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:59:51 -0700

JFC and all,

  It is clear to me, and most of our members that ICANN still does
not yet understand or doesn not wish to understand that an @large
comprised of users of many sorts is.  It is becomming clear that
the same is true of the ALAC and seemingly several of the RALO's.

  What is becoming clear is that the ALAC and the RALO's are
willing to do the ICANN staff and Bod's bidding even if that means
limiting to a great degree active participation of users from whatever
nationality they are from.

JFC Morfin wrote:

> At 10:56 19/06/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> >I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with
> >respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review 
> >report.
> >
> >The consultation going on now is so that the draft may be publicly
> >discussed in Paris, for those who feel that something is missing (as
> >in you said something to the review which you believe has been left
> >out), and this text hasn't been reviewed by the Board, the ALAC
> >Review Committee, or anyone else.
> >
> >This is not to say that comments aren't welcome - on the contrary,
> >as you know I'm always asking for the community to comment more, not
> >less :). I just want to make sure everyone understands that the
> >report will have a full comment period after it is finalised. This
> >is the first of two comment periods on the report and I'm sure any
> >next steps after the report will similarly be posted for public
> >comment too, just as you have seen with the GNSO Review.
> Dear Nick,
> the document(s) we got are big documents which are not proposed in an
> easy to work on way (not a mail, not a wiki). The first thing I used
> to do with that kind of document is to port them to a workable format
> (which usually means to go line by line from a PDF ASCII copy to a
> Open Office text, then to a wiki format if I want to work on it with
> other france@large experts or members, as we did for the IDN report I
> gave the URL yesterday).
> We are half the way through with many other important things to do,
> due to the revamp of our strategy after our non-accreditation and our
> recent press-release with a fundamental france@large meeting on July
> 2nd. We are extremely attentive to this document we have not yet
> started discussing since we will discuss the ATLAX project on July
> 2nd, and want to understand how it will stand in comparison to ALAC.
> >I've also made a request that this comment period be lengthened, as
> >translations will not be ready until only a few days before the
> >present comment period is meant to end, and without translations
> >many in AFRALO and LACRALO will be unable to respond on an equal
> >basis to everyone else.
> This is a key issue. Comment period should start when all the
> material to be considered is available. I do not understand why you
> do not mention EURALO, APRALO, NARALO in your comment. When only
> considering the French Language, it is an administrative language in
> these RALO.
> >If you feel that the comment period is too short - do comment in
> >that vein to the comment address and let Westlake know in Paris (for
> >those of you who are going to be in Paris).
> We certainly will individually as france@large had adopted that
> position. I take the opportunity to underline that we have not
> received your answer in French to our accreditation. This language
> problem is a way to for ICANN to measure the difficulty of what we
> call multilinguistics (the practical support of the linguistic
> diversity) they obviously have not fully understood as the IDNC
> propositions show it.
> >Of course, the point made that any NARALO perspectives which are
> >made clear can only help NARALO members attending Paris is IMHO
> >entirely relevant, FWIW.
> >I hope these comments are helpful - that's certainly the intent.
> Nick, we take your comment as helpful. We have not even fully read
> the main document and just perused the first one. What strikes me is
> that it does not interest me. I mean by this that it considers the
> interest of ALAC for ICANN, but not for @larges. Most of the ALAC
> problem is that participants are "ICANN professionnals". I did not
> even found a definition of what is an "@large" and an anlysis of its
> different types and motivations. But I may be wrong as, frankly we
> had no time to read the document.
> I just regret that ICANN must pay external consultant to explain it
> about the @large they throw away seven years ago, and they seem to
> want to enregiment into a strategic plan.
> jfc
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org


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
My Phone: 214-244-4827

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy