Re: [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all,

  Agreed.  I also seem to recall that JFC desired these
"Internal lists" which by design are divisive, and C. Langdon-Orr
saying she was suffering at one point recently, of list exaustion.
I also seem to recall that there was a nuanced opinion amongst
the list of names you provided below of limiting users input
and participation.  Haven't we heard all this before?  Remember
the IDNO?  I sure do.

  It's clear that these folks are not interested in users issues
or concerns, they seek to use users for their own agenda or agenda's.
Hardly transparent and open, and certainly not accountable.

  What a farce as Wendy rightly deducted.  How long does such
a farce continue to be tolorated by ICANN's bod?  I can only 
guess as long is the ICANN bod get's what it wants irrespective
of the consensus or vote of the users.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Apr 23, 2008 6:19 PM
>To: At-Large Worldwide <alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NA Discuss 
><na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements -      
>comments requested
>
>The Ad-Hoc GNSO Improvements Statement Drafting Group
>is composed of:
>
>C Aguirre (LACRALO) 
>A Greenberg (NARALO) 
>C Langdon-Orr (APRALO/ALAC Chair), 
>V Cretu (EURALO) 
>M El Bashir (AFRALO), and 
>V Scartezini (LACRALO/Vice Chair)
>
>These are the people that Staff tells us secretly
>negotiated a deal with the BC, IPC, ISP and NCUC
>constituencies.  
>
>... and this WG, of course, has no public archives.
>
>Although we were promised at the ALAC Monthly
>teleconference that a community organizational model 
>would be presented for public discussion to the
>At-Large community on 15 April or 16 April, we were
>never shown that model; it remained a secret until the
>"Joint Statement" was posted this morning.
>
>Other groups honored a commitment to their members and
>made the model available for constituency discussion
>as early as late March (IPC), April 10 (BC), April 15
>(ISP).
>
>The ALAC WG members apparently had no such regard for
>their own community.  
>
>Making matters worse, the position that they agreed to
>is a far cry from the Draft Statement that the WG
>circulated on 21 March.  
>
>-- What happened to their initial focus on individual
>internet users as a distinct voting bloc?  
>-- What happened to their proposal regarding domain
>name resellers?  
>-- What happened to the belief that "At-Large is in
>the process of being reviewed and to suggest any
>changes to the structure of the community as it
>presently exists could prejudice the outcome of the
>review"?
>-- What happened to the sentiment that "We do not have
>in mind a particular voting structure for involvement
>of the Internet endusers voice, but are open to any
>proposal that provides for participation on an
>equitable basis"?
>
>What happened to all the public comments that were
>sent through on the topic of GNSO Improvements? Were
>any of them even read by WG members?  
>
>I recall JFC's proposal regarding consumer
>organizations and Roberto Gaetano's push for
>participation of the individual registrants in the
>GNSO.  I recall Ross Rader arguing against the
>arbitrary commercial/non-commercial distinction.  I
>recall Beau Brendler passionately arguing with Roberto
>about the need to extend representation to all users. 
>
>We see none of that in the Joint Statement.  
>
>Call me a cynic, but I don't believe for a moment that
>WG members were actively involved in sustained
>negotiations with the other constituencies... the
>members of this WG can't even manage a sustained
>discussion on this list, let alone between four
>different constituencies.
>
>This event strikes me as an action taken independently
>and arrogantly by the ALAC Chair.  
>
>But this is just speculation on my part, and like
>Brett I'm waiting to hear the truth of this matter
>from those that collaborated on the Joint Statement.
>
>I would love to know why our public input into this
>process has thus far been ignored or cast aside by the
>ALAC leadership.  I would like to know why we weren't
>privy to the documentary text at the same time as
>other constituencies.  I would like to know if this is
>how the ALAC intends to behave in the future.  I would
>like to know when the ALAC will begin respecting the
>need for a comment period of suitable length.
>
>Final comments to the ICANN Board Governance Committee
>are due on Friday.  There has already been one formal
>extension to the comment period, and there has been no
>formal request for a further extension of time.  The
>ALAC shouldn't be putting its ALSs in this
>one-day-to-prepare-comments-position.  This is the
>epitome of irresponsible behavior.
>
>
>--- At-Large Staff <staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Dear All:
>> 
>> As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO
>> Improvements, with
>> representatives of each RALO, has been working on a
>> response 
>
>
>      
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>Be a better friend, newshound, and 
>know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>------
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>------

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827