I agree, Robin -- this is why I said that this situation happens despite
the great efforts of many people involved with ALAC. Unfortunately, the
relationship with ICANN is conducted by some members in a way that makes
these efforts frequently futile -- and these members seem to dominate
the ALAC space, unfortunately. But this is my personal opinion, of course.
--c.a.
Robin Gross wrote:
> I am also disappointed about how a couple people can sew divisiveness
> for a whole group. But I think it is important to remember that most
> individual members of the At-Large community share the same goals and
> objectives as NCUC - to bring more users (including noncommercial) to
> the table at ICANN and work for the public interest in Internet policy.
> Yes, some can be just another commercial user or primarily useful to
> staff rather than civil society, but many individuals in ALAC (I
> believe) want the same things that we do. So we have to remember not to
> characterize an entire group of well-meaning people just because a few
> at the top work to create divisiveness within civil society for their
> own political benefit.
>
> Robin
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>> No surprise... ALAC, in synthesis, was a creation of ICANN senior staff
>> and board, is paid by ICANN, and remains as a representation of the
>> impossible (the "at large user"), i.e, a prime space for the
>> manipulations Amodio describes. This despite the great people who
>> genuinely try to build something meaningful out of this mess -- but
>> cannot avoid these manipulations by the higher power.
>>
>> In this situation, I wonder how people sitting in both spaces (NCUC and
>> ALAC) feel about it, and in particular about the incredible manipulation
>> by staff (with ALAC's consent) of the proposal to build NCSG.
>>
>> From the beginning of the century (ALAC times), I did not join ALAC
>> because I could not and cannot understand a user (at large or whatever
>> color you paint him/her) dissociated of social, political and economic
>> insterests, which are in turn represented within ICANN by the
>> constituencies. I mean, there is this "at large" ethereal user who is...
>> what exactly? Everyone but the ones represented by the other
>> constituencies??? A group of future saints? The RALO gimmick changes
>> what exactly?
>>
>> But it gets worse -- ALAC seems to be moving, through the manipulations
>> Amodio mentions, to become just a pro-business territory.
>>
>> []s fraternos
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, people do associate Milton with NCUC. And as changing
>>>> such
>>>> perceptions is hard, it's best to just say he doesn't speak for us.
>>>
>>> The first two words of the Subject on Milton's email read "My opinion."
>>>
>>> While true that some people may perceive Milton's comments as an
>>> NCUC position, the same people surely know that the IGP blog is not
>>> the "official" NCUC site or way of communication of NCUC positions
>>> on anything related to ICANN.
>>>
>>> I'd be very concerned if we all agree 100% all the time, having different
>>> points of view and expressing them is what creates dialog, which is the
>>> most important vehicle for building consensus about particular issues.
>>>
>>> What's really clear, at least to me, and the standard disclaimer that
>>> this
>>> is my opinion applies, is that something is going on between ALAC
>>> (better said some particular people from ALAC) and NCUC.
>>>
>>> I've been participating also in ALAC, and to be frank I became amazed
>>> about how the bottom-up process is being manipulated and the Chair
>>> instead of providing general direction and let each RALO do its own
>>> independent analysis, micromanages the entire process with support
>>> from ICANN staff even in the creation of documents, where many times
>>> the local folks only get to participate to say if they agree or not
>>> with the
>>> document.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the current mechanics for ALS certification cast
>>> (again this is my personal opinion) a big doubt about who/what
>>> they really represent.
>>>
>>> It takes only a bunch of buddies, few bucks, and a little bit of
>>> paperwork
>>> and noiseware, to create a non-profit org and claim status as an ALS,
>>> much easier if you know really well how the internals work and already
>>> some of your buddies are in and ready to support you.
>>>
>>> I've seen ALSs without any track record, just recently created claiming
>>> to be representative of the Internet users, well to be frank they are,
>>> just them (I mean the ones that created the ALS).
>>>
>>> And this is happening right now, where former board members are
>>> asking for certification for an ALS when the ink on the filings is still
>>> wet, and besides the track record of particular individuals the
>>> organization itself does not have any.
>>>
>>> I hope we can move away from this "he said, she said" non-sense
>>> and focus on the issues.
>>>
>>> The agenda is packed (unfortunately I can't make it today to be on
>>> the meeting), there are too many things going on, the new version
>>> of the DAG will be published soon, its only a week until the JPA
>>> ends and what? begins, the domainers are demanding immediate
>>> implementation of the new gTLDs (VC capital drying?), there are
>>> issues regarding scalability of the root zone and overall stability of
>>> the DNS, Seoul is around the corner, and so on.
>>>
>>> My .02
>>> Jorge
>>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
|
