Hope this can be sent to ALAC if there are any fair-minded people on both lists

This post has generated quite a reaction, but it is worthwhile to note that all the negative ones emanate from ALAC and staff. I think the main issue here is that my post made open and explicit a problem that already existed and has been gaining momentum for months. When conflicts are aired, it is common to shoot the messenger: the person who identifies an internal conflict and makes it public is frequently accused of <em>causing </em>the conflict. 

This post, and the controversy around it, reflects a fact: ALAC and NCUC are fundamentally divided over the future of the NCSG. As Bill Drake's comment indicated, the problem of suspicion and accusation characterizes both sides. The tone of indignation in the ALAC responses is unjustified, because people within ALAC have been badmouthing NCUC around this issue for months, and a few policy staff have been aiding and abetting those divisions. Sorry if that isn't pretty, Kieren, but that's what's happening. Don't blame me for the underlying problems of ICANN politics. 

I will concede that the tone of the article is angry, perhaps inappropriately so. I will also concede that in a few minor matters that don't really affect the argument (e.g., whether Beau was elected or not) there are errors. Although it names names, I do not concede that this article is personal. It is about an important substantive issue affecting the GNSO.  

ALAC as a whole, and certainly Beau and Cheryl, are fully aware of the fact that NCUC -- and almost everyone in civil society -- has rejected the NCSG charter that the staff and the SIC imposed on us. They know that NCUC believes that a constituency-based structure is designed to divide and cripple us. Indeed, Cheryl and two ALAC members are the ONLY people who commented in favor of the constituency based charter. Cheryl even falsely portrayed her opinion as that of ALAC as a whole. Even a substantial portion of the Board now realizes that it was a mistake to impose the SIC charter onthe NCSG, and the Board as a whole has agreed to review it after a year. 

If that review is to be a real one, no new constituencies can be recognized and put into place before the charter issue is settled. Because the role of constituencies in the NCSG is precisely the issue that needs to be resolved. To insist on the Consumer constituency being recognized now is exactly the same as saying there should be no charter review. Cheryl and ALAC are in effect trying to pre-empt and bypass the continued negotations among NCUC, the Board and ALAC. And that is the same as saying, "we don't care what 150 civil society organizations think, their views should be excluded and ignored, as they were before." And that is far more insulting than anything in my blog post. 
<p>
Adam Peake points out that ALAC voted in favor of a Consumer Constituency back in April. True. But that was before the battle over the nature of the charter was joined. That was before virtually every civil society organization and every individual in NCUC made clear in the public comment period that they wanted an integrated NCSG, not one fragmented into warring constituencies. That was before the NCUC letter to the Board asking for a moratorium on new constituencies until the charter was settled. 
<p>
I apologize if my blog wasn't clear on this: What ALAC is doing now is not merely reiterating their support for a Consumer Constituency in a general sense. What they are doing is asking the Board to disregard the NCUC request to delay the formation of such a constituency until the charter issue is settled. 
<p>
So Adam, based your worthwhile observation, here are a few questions for Cheryl, Beau, and any other person involved in this current vote. Have ALAC's leadership made any attempts to communicate directly with any officer of NCUC about this vote? Have they given NCUC members or officers an opportunity to present their case to the RALOs? It is clear that the nature of the NCUC letter was misrepresented to the ALAC and RALOs. The letter was described as proposing to delay the GNSO reforms, when that is not true. The letter was described as being "against" a Consumer constituency on principle when in fact NCUC is simply asking that any decision about it be deferred until the charter issue is settled. 
<p>
What about other comments on the post? What do they contribute. Beau Brendler is notably vague about the level of support this consumer constituency has. He says, "The support for it came from other consumer organizations [what other organizations, Beau?] and people working together within the ALAC [i.e., this is really the ALAC constituency, isn't it?]. We have learned from Holly that she has the "imprimatur" of ACCAN, (the article already recognized the connection to ACCAN) but that doesn't change the fact that ACCAN did not formally express its support for such a constituency, and one organization does not a constituency make. To my ALAC critics: please explain to me why an entity with over 150 members, 5-6 of them consumer organizations, should have have of its votes taken away by a group of 3-4 ALAC people calling themselves representatives of "consumers." 

Then we have Evan Liebowitz, who is so outraged by my post that he acquires the special moral status to call me a bunch of names: "the gutter tone, the insinuations, the tinfoil-hat-level conspiracy theories...petty and desperate...sad...personally vindictive." No substantive contribution, there. 

So let's be adults and focus on the real issue: why is ALAC - which is not a representative of noncommercial users in the GNSO, both because it is notr part of the GNSO and seeing as how it includes a mix of commercial and noncommercial interests - attempting to prevent the 150+ entities in the NCUC from having a real say in the future charter of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group?