Re: [alac] ALAC discussions (moved to the public list)

["Annette Muehlberg" <Annette.Muehlberg@xxxxxx>]

Bret Fausett <fausett@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 04.04.05 18:00:49:
> 
> I'm new here, but I'm fairly optimistic about the things I'm hearing 
> about the ALAC. We've spent some substantial time today discussing our 
> future, but I left the discussion rather encouraged.
> 
>

 By the way, the current ICANN Bylaws (and all previous versions) provide 
> a mechanism for accrediting new constituencies for the GNSO. See, 
> http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4  We could certainly 
> facilitate ALAC groups with similar interests (like libraries, 
> educators, etc.)  in the process of becoming a GNSO constituency. I 
> would rather follow that path than see GNSO constituencies replace the 
> ALAC.
....think that is a good approach.
annette


> 
>         -- Bret
> 
> > For an addition to the agenda, can we confront the major question 
> > head-on: Is ALAC (and its ponderous ALS-RALO appendages) a meaningful, 
> > appropriate, or sufficient  means for individual involvement in 
> > ICANN?  After two years at it, I think the answer is no, but I think 
> > we're at least well placed to propose some better alternatives.  What 
> > about jump-starting some other full-fledged constituencies to 
> > complement non-commercial: libraries, educators, registrants, privacy 
> > constituency?  It's plain there are a lot of people who are burned out 
> > from trying to deal with ICANN, but many more might participate if 
> > given meaningful opportunities on par with commercial interests, 
> > rather than subordinate to them.
> 
> 

-- 


______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193