[alac] [fwd] Letter to the ALAC (from: dannyyounger@yahoo.com)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

fyi
-- 
Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.


----- Forwarded message from Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> -----

From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 13:48:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Letter to the ALAC
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
X-Spam-Level: 

Dear members of the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee,
 
As a participant in the ICANN process, I have noted those occasions
when community representatives have convened to draft measures
designed to guide a future course of action; I have also noted that
these well-intentioned plans crafted by experienced, serious-minded
and knowledgeable people will occasionally fail when confronted with
operational realities.  Allow me to illustrate by way of an example:
The Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group composed of
Rita A. Rodin (chair), Marilyn Cade, Guillermo Carey, Caroline
Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff Neuman, Bruce Tonkin and Philip
Sheppard devised a Prelimary Framework that was ultimately approved
by the ICANN Board.  This Framework called for a structured policy
development process with fixed timelines (approximately 60-90 days
from inauguration to completion).  To most of us it has been clear
for some time now that the realities of the deliberation process
within the GNSO Task Force environment have thwarted strict
adherence to fixed timetables.  Members of the GNSO Council have
recognized the deficiencies in their current approach and have
petitioned the ICANN Board (by way of the "Required Changes to ICANN
Bylaws" section of the GNSO Self Review document -- see
http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec2-22dec04.pdf ) for
modifications to the present approach that would allow for
improvements to be made.  
 
We applaud the resolve of the membership of the GNSO Council to
conduct their own self-review and we appreciate their wisdom in
petitioning the ICANN Board for necessary changes to the bylaws. By
the same token, we congratulate the members of the ALAC for having
initiated a comparable course of self-review action (as noted in the
comment posted by Izumi Aizu at
http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00828.html ), and hope
that the deficiencies in the framework that currently guides the
activities of the ALAC will be corrected accordingly by necessary
changes to the ICANN bylaws (with, of course, input being requested
from the broader at-large community in much the same manner as GNSO
Council members request input from their respective constituencies).
 
We participants on the General Assembly Discussion List remind the
Interim ALAC that the General Assembly as a structural unit of the
Names Supporting Organization was eliminated by the ICANN Board
whose Evolution and Reform Committee noted that "the purpose of
communication among the broader community that the General Assembly
has served to date can be absorbed by the At Large Advisory
Committee." This course of action was subject to the caveat that
"the GNSO Council should maintain the operation of the current
General Assembly discussion lists until such time as the ALAC has
shown it can take over that responsibility, and at that time the
responsibility for a general public discussion list on ICANN issues
should be transferred to the ALAC."
 
As we mailing list participants continue to see a value in the
commentary that can be afforded by a cross-constituency venue such
as the GA list (our archives are located at
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/ ), we are prompted
to ask if the now two-year old Interim ALAC believes that it has
finally reached the level of maturity required to assume the
responsibility for management of the General Assembly list.
 
If you believe that you are now prepared to take over such
responsibility, I would ask you to inaugurate your management of the
General Assembly list by facilitating public discussion on those
changes to the ICANN bylaws that would be required to correct the
deficiences in your current framework as well as those changes
necessary to implement the consensus recommendation of the At-Large
Study Committee: "Based on our view of ICANN as a balance among
developers, providers and users, we would recommend that the
At-Large membership select a third of ICANN's Board." see
http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
 
As you are representatives of the At-Large interest, we presume that
you have no qualms about seeking to implement the consensus-driven
recommendation of your peers to place elected at-large
representatives on one third of the ICANN Board (especially at a
time when the state of ICANN finances are no longer the issue that
they once were).
 
We look forward to your participation on the General Assembly
discussion list, and know that you understand that all efforts to
continue promoting "participation without representation" are
categorically rejected by the at-large community.
 
Best regards,
Danny Younger
dannyyounger[at]yahoo.com



                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
----- End forwarded message -----