Re: [alac] WSIS agenda

["Roberto Gaetano" <alac_liaison@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think that we really have to take time in Vancouver to discuss among 
ourselves what the role and function of ALAC is and /or should be.
The way I see it, personally, is that we are here to build internet user 
representation "within ICANN", not in a different context. Which means, 
still in my personal opinion, that we need to address the issues that are 
within the scope of ICANN, not all the problems of the world.
In the same way as I previously, as chairman of the GA, accepted all kind of 
open and transparent discussion on matters that were related to our scope 
and mission (which at the time was Domain Names), but rejected as out of 
scope world politics (if not related to DNS), I am presently against 
shifting the focus of ALAC to issues, like for instance spam, that are 
outside the scope of ICANN.

Personally, and I expressed this opinion also in Board meetings, ICANN 
should stick to its mission, and try to do it better. If effort has to be 
spent, it has to be in the scope of the mission, and we have to be clear in 
rejecting what is outside it. Regardless of what any constituency of ICANN 
would like to do.

This is a serious question, and I intend to follow up on this. What is our 
(ALAC) role in this?
Sorry for not being alble to discuss this in more depth for the time being, 
I have severe connectivity limitations, and I hope to bring this back to 
life by mid-next week.

Regards,
Roberto GAETANO
ALAC
ICANN BoD Liaison





> From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: John L <johnl@xxxxxxxx>
> CC: Sebas Ricciardi <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'ALAC'" <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [alac] WSIS agenda
> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:30:43 +0100
>
> John L ha scritto:
> > Since ICANN has done such a bad job on the issues it has tried to deal 
> > with, like i18n domain names, I agree.
> >
> > But a more competent ICANN would be a fine place to convene discussions to 
> > address Net issues, even if the work to be done isn't ICANN's.  For 
> > example, the London Action Plan on spam is an ad-hoc group mostly of 
> > government consumer agencies.  If ICANN had reasonable relationships with 
> > governments, ICANN would have been the right place to convene that group, 
> > even though very little of what they do directly affects DNS.
>
> I've thought this in the past for a number of issues, but apparently ICANN 
> doesn't want and doesn't have the "organizational culture" to do it. 
> Whether the new forum will be able to do it, it's still to be understood - 
> I hope so.
> In any case, it has often been said that the Forum should piggyback on 
> existing Internet Governance meetings... even if now it seems that there's 
> a rush to host it "ad hoc" (Greece already formally obtained the first 
> meeting, and the Brazilian Minister Gilberto Gil declared in public they 
> want to get it for 2007).
> --
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/