ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-improvements-report-2008]


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

Re: [NA-Discuss] The problem with ALAC Statements

  • To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, NA Discuss <na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso-improvements-report-2008@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] The problem with ALAC Statements
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:23:54 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Danny and all,

  Concisely correct, and I agree.  Further still the Atlarge
and the ALAC should be either seceded or completely
reconsitituted in a manner that reflects users regardless
of status.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Apr 25, 2008 6:48 AM
>To: NA Discuss <na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [NA-Discuss] The problem with ALAC Statements
>
>Let's talk about how the ALAC generates a "Statement"
>and what our NA reps on the ALAC can do to fix this
>problem.
>
>We saw an abuse of process in the ALAC Statement on
>the JPA which was put forward without an ALAC vote
>(for that matter, it was put forward even without
>ALAC-member consensus:  "Whilst this document is not
>tendered to you as formally constituted consensus of
>the views of all of the At-Large community on this
>important matter...").
>
>We recently have witnessed the ALAC "Joint Statement" 
>that once again was not subject to a vote of the ALAC
>nor was it a product of any wide-reaching discussions.
>
>Further, almost all recent ALAC documents have had a
>public comment period of extremely limited duration: 
>The (non-joint) ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements
>had a one week window for comments; the Statement on
>the Draft Operating Plan as well as the Statement on
>Travel Policy had a 10-day window for comment.
>
>Frankly, this sucks.  Even ICANN routinely allows 3-4
>weeks for comments.
>
>I see the same types of things going on in the NCUC
>where members are given one or two days maximum to
>elicit organizational feedback in response to a
>position "already" taken by the leadership.  
>
>More and more, we are witnessing the emergence of
>private fiefdoms wherein just one or two people within
>a constituent group call the shots and generate the
>Statements without any truly broad consultation.  We
>don't need this kind of pattern to take hold in the
>ALAC.  
>
>It's time for our reps to take a principled stand on
>this issue and to insist on proper methodologies;
>otherwise, the NARALO should formally consider
>seceding from the ALAC.
>
>
>      
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>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


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