Re: [alac] President's Committee on Strategy, and ICANN legitimacy
Roberto Gaetano ha scritto: This is actually a very interesting discussion, thanks to Wendy for having moved it to the public list. I agree with you on a number of observations, especially on our sort of schizophreny in asking for opportunities, then failing to show up, then asking again or complaining. (True, we are volunteers, but...) However, on this specific issue, I think I have to clarify my line of thought again. In Wellington, I criticized the Committee on a number of points: 1. It was a new entity not foreseen by the Bylaws, that apparently altered the normal consensus-making process on a delicate matter such as ICANN reforms; 2. Its mission was unstated and unclear; 3. Its composition was completely unbalanced; 4. It was unclear whether the Board (that must act as "check and balance" for the management) had ever discussed points 1, 2 and 3, and what was the result. Now, point 3 has been partly addressed: one of our nominees was accepted, and so the composition is now only extremely unbalanced, rather than completely unbalanced (or do you disagree on this?). Other points have not been addressed. I think it is simply not enough to stop criticizing this Committee and start supporting its work. Of course, the Board and the management are absolutely free to stand by their opinion even if it does not coincide with that of the ALAC, and to ignore our input. But I think that the ALAC should be free to stand by its opinion as well, and continue opposing the actions that it doesn't like. Perhaps the mistake was accepting to provide names rather than calling ourselves out of the process, but I am a reasonable person and I don't like destructive opposition. But you can't say that since we could cooperate on names, then we lose our right to criticism on all other parts of the story. always be in line with the wishes of ALAC. And I know that the first time that something gets decided that is not what ALAC wants (or maybe some in ALAC want), it is not going to be because we have to acknowledge that there are interests and approaches other than ALAC's, but it is going to be rather the living proof that the Board is blindly obeying to the ordeers of the multinational capitalist pig, or the president's committee, or other fashionable conspiracy. I think I have provided reasonable reasons for my continued disagreement (others can do the same if they want). I would like to be challenged on the reasons I am giving, rather than having my line of reasoning rewritten to then criticize it. If the point is that there are interests, both by some governments and by the business people who have more power at ICANN, to reach an agreement among themselves on the new ICANN structure and keep everyone else out of the door... ok, I acknowledge that "there are interests and approaches other than ALAC's", but don't ask me to accept in silence that they're the only ones playing a role :-) -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
|