Re: [alac] Discussions on the current model

[Izumi AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I very much echo with what Wendy wrote and observed below.

I do not want to impose or insist that we "faield" - as completely.

But at the same time, we could see we did not succeed in establishing
the RALOs within three years, that is a fact, right? And I do not see
any ALSs certified so far has been that much active at all.

For example, could you name which one, if any, is that active, putting
ICANN/AtLarge related issues on their website, collecting opinions
and voices to these issues from their members, we are dealing, 
privacy/whois, sitefinder/Verisign, etc?

There are some which are represented by a single representative, like
myself on behalf of Internet Users Network, but this is not active
at all to tell you the truth. Similarly, I don't see most ISOC chapters in
proactive participation either.

Other than a few at the most, there are little tangible activities
we can trace, and I think we should be honest about our
limitations.

That does not mean that we have to deny everything, not. But I thinks we
should face our factual achivements/limitations and try to come up with
improvements as agressively as possible. Trying to accommodating
individuals who are not affiliated in any existing ALSs is one way, making
more active online discussions in public is another.

But I don't think we can claim a great success either. Let's forget
about that kind of dichotomy, and rather than only making self-review
ourselves, we also better to listen to others observations, too.

Thus I think it's time for us to think deep and bold, and open
to constructive criticisms, too.

izumi

At 21:27 05/11/29 -0300, Sebas Ricciardi wrote:
> Dear Wendy,
>
> Thanks so much for your message.
>
> You said " We have tried, over several years, to work within the directives
> of the ALAC charter, and yet we in North America still find lack of interest
> from broad segments of the public in joining ALSs -- and interest from
> individual members of the public for whom ALSs as described do not serve an
> effective role." I don't agree at all with this idea. I believe there is a
> number of organizations out there (US and CANADA) that still don't know
> about ICANN or ALAC. We had a proof of that today, when we heard Robert
> Guerra's impressions about the interest of Canadian organizations in joining
> the process.
>
> There are also a number of points I would like to make in the framework of
> this discussion:
>
> 1) We can improve our outreach efforts by planning them in a different and
> better manner.
> 2) If US organizations are not happy with ALAC because they still want At
> Large directors, they will eventually join once they realize that elections
> wont happen again.
> 3) The model is being succesful in other regions
> 4) We certified a good number of organizations, despite the criticism and
> lack of confidence.
> 5) We made some major improvements in the last year, and I am sure there are
> more to come.
>
> I think it will be constructive, since you've raised this issue, if you
> could provide us some practical examples of the difficulties you're
> experiencing. Besides Danny Younger, Richard Henderson and Karl Auerbach,
> how many organizations have turned you down? Why?
>
> And just to finish, I remember my first experience with ALAC at Rio. In our
> first meeting someone raised his voice to tell us that we were doomed from
> the beginning and that no organization would be interested in joining ALAC
> efforts. Well, today we have 22 organizations representing more than 20,000
> users proving this person was wrong. And I am not counting those
> organizations who did apply and - for different reasons - we did not
> certify.
>
> We may want to look for improvements opportunitties in the model, that would
> be great, and I will be happy to participate in that discussion.
>
> I will send you some comments of the impact we have on the ICANN process
> later on.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/186 - Release Date: 29/11/2005