[alac] Re: [alac-admin] FYI - FW: [alac-comments] On the ALAC's Request for Comments...

["Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we could prepare a statement in response to the comments received
in the last days.

As you might now, I'm not involved in ICANN politics, and that gives me a
limited capability to understand the actual intention of these persons. I
still think that we can learn a few things from their imput, and I do
recognize the value of their comments - despite of some hilarious
language -.

However, I do want to clarify certain issues here.

1) If I hadn't known Mr. Younger at Rio, I were sure - because of the
language of his message - that we are dealing with a spoiled 14 years old
kid. Words such as "feeble-minded idiots", "stooges", "Mentally Challenged"
and "spineless worms" do not look like a comment sent by an inteligent
person who has been General Assembly Chair of the DNSO. If  Mr.
Younger -whom I still consider a very smart and passionate person - could
use a more appropiate language to communicate his ideas, his comments would
be looked with an other kind of attention. Let me point out here that I do
share some of his thoughts (some of those that not concern to personal
offenses, of course).

2) I don't think that the technical problems we may found in setting up the
public forum gives Mr. Auerbach the right to acuse us in the way he did. It
was a minor failure that will be fixed pretty soon.

3) If those who acused us of  representing all the evil in this world could
help us with constructive ideas, I am sure that our work would be so much
better. Even they could be favored by the changes achieved, as a part of the
Internet Community.

4) Most of the comments we've received are very constructive. We should put
the public forum
up & running asap, in order to promote a bigger discussion on the issues
we're handling.

Regards,

Sebastian

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-alac-comments@xxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:owner-alac-comments@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of DannyYounger@xxxxxx
> >Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 5:22 PM
> >To: alac-comments@xxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [alac-comments] On the ALAC's Request for Comments...
> >
> >
> >This moronic plan surely must have been conceived by the
> >feeble-minded idiots
> >and stooges that participated as members of the At-Large
> >Assistance Group --
> >it has all the hallmarks of a document hand-written by ICANN staff and
> >rubber-stamped by the ICANN Board's hand-picked puppets (who
> >apparently are
> >too ignorant or too naive to understand that they are only being used as
a
> >conveniently pliable tool to promote the fiction that ICANN is in
> >compliance
> >with task number nine under the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S.
> >Department of Commerce).
> >
> >Having witnessed the complete and total elimination of all public
> >representation on the ICANN Board these fools on the At-Large Advisory
> >Committee now expect the Internet community to rally around a
> >top-down effort
> >designed to asininely further complicate communication between individual
> >users and members of the ICANN Board.
> >
> >In the past, any individual user could write a letter to ICANN and feel
> >confident that they would be ignored (as it has become rather
> >apparent that
> >ICANN only bothers to pay attention to those special-interest
> >groups it deems
> >to be "stakeholders" in its Cartel).  Now one has to do all of the
> >following
> >in order to achieve the same outcome:
> >
> >1.  First one must find a noncommercial entity to join.
> >2.  Next, one needs to convince the members of this non-profit group that
> >they must post on their website information that pertains to ICANN
> >activities/issues, and further convince them to offer Internet-based
> >discussion mechanisms so that such activities/issues may be evaluated.
> >3.  Then it next becomes necessary to convince this noncommercial
> >group that
> >they must provide information on the group's general funding
> >sources to the
> >ALAC (so that this Committee of pseudo-accountants/analysts can
ostensibly
> >come to a determination as to whether the non-profit has commitments or
> >obligations that would conflict with its ability to involve and represent
> >individual constituents' interests).
> >4.  At this point, one must now confirm that somewhere on the non-profit
> >group's website is an articulation of its non-commercial goals and
> >structure,
> >a description of constituent group(s), its working mechanisms,
leadership,
> >and contact(s) -- unlike the ALAC which has no posted working
> >mechanisms, an
> >incomplete structure, no contact data on its discussion list (the e-mail
> >addresses of all the "representatives" are replaced with XXXXX),
> >no working
> >public forum and no publicly archived public comments.
> >5.  Then, the non-profit must be convinced to submit in electronic form a
> >completed application and to provide the ALAC any further requested
> >documentation (which may include references, documents to verify general
> >funding sources, documents on the organization's leadership and
> >operations,
> >and documents that demonstrate the identity of all their individual
> >constituents -- has anyone on this Committee ever heard of the concept of
> >privacy?).  The non-profit must also be convinced that it must
necessarily
> >subject itself to the prospect of further possible interviews
> >regarding the
> >organization's contact(s) and must potentially provide other as yet
> >unspecified information about the organization.
> >6.  If the ALAC then decides to designate this organization as an
eligible
> >"structure", the user that wishes to communicate with the ICANN Board
must
> >next find at least three other such structures (that must be located in
at
> >least two countries) and must persuade these structures to form a
regional
> >organization.
> >7.  In order to form this regional body, the user must then convince
these
> >other organizations to spend months and months developing a set of bylaws
> >that all organizations can agree upon, and then the user must further
> >convince each non-profit organization to share in the financial burden of
> >establishing this new umbrella organization -- that means dedicating
> >financial resources for the purpose of incorporation, and setting
> >aside funds
> >to provide for an organizational website, Secretariat services, and such.
> >8.  The user must also convince each such non-profit organization
> >that it's
> >limited funds should be applied to this glorious experiment instead of
> >remitting such limited funds as the membership fee for direct
> >participation
> >in ICANN's Non-Commercial constituency (which at least gets to
> >participate in
> >the election of an ICANN director).
> >9.  If the regional organization is finally created, then the user
> >must await
> >the formulation of a formal Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN which
> >consecrates this effort...  (for some reason, this Committee of the
> >Mentally-Challenged seems to think that the At-Large is so
> >gullible that it
> >will willingly enter into a contract with ICANN in the full knowledge
that
> >ICANN has broken all of its prior promises, ignored the consensus
> >conclusions
> >of its own Blue Ribbon Panel (the ALSC) and has gleefully wiped
> >out all user
> >representation on its Board).
> >10.  Finally, if this last stage is achieved, the user can then send his
> >comments to the two members of the ALAC that his regional organization
has
> >elected.  Those two members will then transmit his message to the full
> >committee that will next proceed to filter, mangle, distort, and
> >re-write his
> >comments (after sincerely thanking him for his input).  The ALAC will
then
> >transmit a non-binding "recommendation" to the Board that in turn
> >will thank
> >the committee for its efforts before proceeding to ignore the comments
> >received.
> >
> >As a user, I don't need this degree of structural bullshit just to
> >communicate my sentiments directly to ICANN.  The problem is not
> >the lack of
> >a structured vehicle to serve as a communications conduit... the
> >problem has
> >always been that the Board has been comprised of members that can't be
> >bothered to listen to the voice of the public that they
> >purportedly serve.
> >
> >This ALAC plan sucks.  Unfortunately, the spineless worms on the
Committee
> >will never advocate for substantive change.  Instead, they will
> >meekly accept
> >the bylaws as written and will continue to pretend to "represent" the
> >At-Large.  All hail the Company Union.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>