ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

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

Re: [alac] Fwd: Appeal to the ALAC

  • To: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] Fwd: Appeal to the ALAC
  • From: "Clement Dzidonu" <clement@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:56:05 -0800 (PST)

Hello All!!:

Good and interesting points raised by Danny Younger....
...but lets not forget that..before we launch into a debate on the pros
and cons of this suggestion....prior to the setting up of ALAC, various 
permutations of Board representation for At-large were proposed by the
NAIS group (to which Izumi and myself belong) the At Large Study group
(Pierre and Denise etc) set up by ICANN. Pls refer to the archives....

These issues relating to Board representation (in what form and in what
numbers) you may recalled were hotly discussed and debated by the at large
community over months..and ICANN in its wisdom decided to set up the ALAC
structure and instead proposed an ALAC Laison to the Board.

The question is do we intend to open up this debate all over again.? If so
in what form and under what forum...And what will the implications of
opening up this debate on what ALAC is all about..what it is supposed to
be doing (working towards setting up the RALOs)etc

I don't mind opening up a discussion on any topic relevant to the issue of
ICANN and the At-Large..but we need to be clear..why we are doing it..for
what purpose...and what value-added..and more importantly where will this
lead us to etc.

Best rgds


>> Dear Vittorio,
>> Please forward this correspondence to the At-Large
>> Advisory Committee.
>> Dear At-Large Advisory Committee members,
>> Vittorio's recent post to CircleID (cited below)
>> reflects the frustration of the At-Large.  We are a
>> community convinced that the ICANN Board has not been
>> listening to our input.
>> As end-users of the DNS, policy decisions enacted by
>> the Board impact us directly and as such we, ICANN's
>> largest stakeholder group, warrant seats at the table
>> where such decisions are being made -- this is the
>> only manner by which we can ensure that our views will
>> be taken into account.
>> In order to secure representation on the Board we
>> members of the At-Large have no choice but to
>> establish a Supporting Organization to elect our own
>> Board representatives.
>> It is long past time to pursue this course of action.
>> Every other substantial group within ICANN has such
>> representation.  Unless you believe that it is
>> sufficient for our community to continue being treated
>> as a pariah, then I ask you to take action (as did the
>> ccTLD community) by laying the groundwork to establish
>> our own Supporting Organization.
>> Consider your own frustration.  Ask yourselves, has an
>> advisory body construct well-served the needs of the
>> At-Large, or would we better be served by a different
>> institutional framework?  The ccTLDs recognized that
>> their needs weren't being suitably met by ICANN and
>> reorganized accordingly.  We as an impacted community
>> must do the same.
>> I ask you to begin by establishing a mailing list
>> wherein these and other at-large considerations may be
>> thoroughly discussed/debated by the entirety of our
>> community.
>> I ask you to enter into a discussion with your peers
>> in the At-Large.
>> Best regards,
>> Danny Younger
> --
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy