RE: [alac] Discussions on the current model

["Sebas Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please see my comments embedded 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Izumi
AIZU
Enviado el: Martes, 29 de Noviembre de 2005 09:46 p.m.
Para: 'ALAC - interim'
CC: alice@xxxxxxx; shahshah@xxxxxxxx; jacqueline.morris@xxxxxxxxx
Asunto: Re: [alac] Discussions on the current model

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? 

SR :: Nobody is denying that. And this is precisely why we should focus our
efforts in developing a detail plan for the future instead of giving up with
the model. We have put a lot of effort in this, but frankly, I think we need
better organization. There were substantive improvements in the last 3
years, and, even though if we thought it wont take us so much time, we are
much closer of that objective now. 

And I do not see any ALSs certified so far has been that much active at all.

SR :: I think you're wrong. The problem is to organize those efforts. I'm
sure that all certified ALSs are eager to engage in policy discussions. To
keep them out of the discussion is completely our fault. If the mailing list
and the monthly newsletter is not enough to fulfil that goal, we should try
new ways. The new website will help us here, for sure.

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?

SR :: Yes! From LAC I can give you two examples: Alfa Redi & Internauta are
working on this regards. Eric's organization runs a wide mailing list in
wich several matters are being discuss. Internauta is working in the IDNs
issue, more specifically regarding the inclusion of Ñ. Internauta did
provide some imput on this and on XXX (I forwarded their mail to the list a
couple of months ago). Other organizations, like AGEIA DENSI have contacted
me once we certified them to explore a good way to work together.

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.

SR :: Sure. And we need to learn how to address them instead of try to
change the model.

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.

SR :: I strongly support these two ideas.

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.

SR :: Those are two separate issues. Let's go step by step.

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
>

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/186 - Release Date: 29/11/2005
 

-- 
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