Letter to the ALAC

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear members of the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee,
 
As a participant in the ICANN process, I have noted those occasions when 
community representatives have convened to draft measures designed to guide a 
future course of action; I have also noted that these well-intentioned plans 
crafted by experienced, serious-minded and knowledgeable people will 
occasionally fail when confronted with operational realities.  Allow me to 
illustrate by way of an example:
The Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group composed of Rita A. Rodin 
(chair), Marilyn Cade, Guillermo Carey, Caroline Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff 
Neuman, Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard devised a Prelimary Framework that was 
ultimately approved by the ICANN Board.  This Framework called for a structured 
policy development process with fixed timelines (approximately 60-90 days from 
inauguration to completion). 
To most of us it has been clear for some time now that the realities of the 
deliberation process within the GNSO Task Force environment have thwarted 
strict adherence to fixed timetables.  Members of the GNSO Council have 
recognized the deficiencies in their current approach and have petitioned the 
ICANN Board (by way of the "Required Changes to ICANN Bylaws" section of the 
GNSO Self Review document -- see 
http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec2-22dec04.pdf ) for modifications 
to the present approach that would allow for improvements to be made.  
 
We applaud the resolve of the membership of the GNSO Council to conduct their 
own self-review and we appreciate their wisdom in petitioning the ICANN Board 
for necessary changes to the bylaws. By the same token, we congratulate the 
members of the ALAC for having initiated a comparable course of self-review 
action (as noted in the comment posted by Izumi Aizu at 
http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00828.html ), and hope that the 
deficiencies in the framework that currently guides the activities of the ALAC 
will be corrected accordingly by necessary changes to the ICANN bylaws (with, 
of course, input being requested from the broader at-large community in much 
the same manner as GNSO Council members request input from their respective 
constituencies).
 
We participants on the General Assembly Discussion List remind the Interim ALAC 
that the General Assembly as a structural unit of the Names Supporting 
Organization was eliminated by the ICANN Board whose Evolution and Reform 
Committee noted that "the purpose of communication among the broader community 
that the General Assembly has served to date can be absorbed by the At Large 
Advisory Committee."   This course of action was subject to the caveat that 
"the GNSO Council should maintain the operation of the current General Assembly 
discussion lists until such time as the ALAC has shown it can take over that 
responsibility, and at that time the responsibility for a general public 
discussion list on ICANN issues should be transferred to the ALAC."
 
As we mailing list participants continue to see a value in the commentary that 
can be afforded by a cross-constituency venue such as the GA list (our archives 
are located at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/ ), we are 
prompted to ask if the now two-year old Interim ALAC believes that it has 
finally reached the level of maturity required to assume the responsibility for 
management of the General Assembly list.
 
If you believe that you are now prepared to take over such responsibility, I 
would ask you to inaugurate your management of the General Assembly list by 
facilitating public discussion on those changes to the ICANN bylaws that would 
be required to correct the deficiences in your current framework as well as 
those changes necessary to implement the consensus recommendation of the 
At-Large Study Committee:  "Based on our view of ICANN as a balance among 
developers, providers and users, we would recommend that the At-Large 
membership select a third of ICANN's Board."  see  
http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
 
As you are representatives of the At-Large interest, we presume that you have 
no qualms about seeking to implement the consensus-driven recommendation of 
your peers to place elected at-large representatives on one third of the ICANN 
Board (especially at a time when the state of ICANN finances are no longer the 
issue that they once were).
 
We look forward to your participation on the General Assembly discussion list, 
and know that you understand that all efforts to continue promoting 
"participation without representation" are categorically rejected by the 
at-large community.
 
Best regards,
Danny Younger
dannyyounger[at]yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com