hi Je,

On Jul 24, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>> One thing that I found particularly depressing in the comments was  
>> the ALAC leadership's decision to endorse the SIC/staff version,  
>> and to dismiss NCUC's model as some sort of capture strategy on the  
>> part of an apparently evil cabal (that's us, I guess).
>
> Hi Bill, are you refering to Cheryl's statement?
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00067.html
>
> I've been told that it is not an ALAC statement since ALAC didn't  
> discuss this matter. What is more, it is not, as Cheryl claims, a  
> synopsis of former statements as it clearly contradicts other  
> positions of ALAC. Since I am not an EURALO member anymore, I cannot  
> point this out to the membership but I've asked two other members to  
> do something about Cheryl's statement.

That's interesting.  I've inquired on the Euralo list, let's see if  
there's any clues forthcoming.

>
> From: William Drake <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: July 24, 2009 7:23:07 PM GMT+02:00
> To: Euralo Members List <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Comment on Stakeholder Charters by Cheryl Langdon-Orr  
> ALAC Chair 2007-2009
>
> Hi,
>
> As a member of both the NCUC and Euralo/ALAC environments, I must  
> say I was a little puzzled by this statement in the public comment  
> period on the NCSG charter.  http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00067.html
>
> The statement begins by noting that "This is not a formal or  
> ratified statement or comment per se but rather a synopsis of those  
> previously provided in various fora to date" (lots of writing like  
> that, a bit hard to read, but whatever...).  I don't recall the  
> previous discussions on Euralo or other ALAC-related lists that are  
> being synopsized in which people endorsed a narrowly constituency- 
> based model for the NCSG, which will result in fragmentation,  
> politicization, and ineffectiveness.  To the contrary, my  
> recollection, which is refreshed by Cheryl's comment, is that ALAC  
> people actually rejected the CP80 proposal, which embodied such a  
> model.  And yet the new SIC/staff version embodies pretty much the  
> same model, and now it is apparently ok and to be supported!
>
> I'm sure the SIC/staff will be pleased to have at least one reliable  
> expression of support for the dysfunctional model that has been  
> rejected by hundreds of individuals and organizations over two  
> public comment periods.  http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters 
>  and http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters.  And of  
> course, everyone's entitled to their own opinion and bits of self- 
> aggrandizing historical revisionism.  What I'm unable to figure out  
> is whether that opinion is widely shared among the people whose  
> views purportedly are being synopsized, and when and where this  
> support was expressed.  Did I just miss the memo?  Can anyone explain?
>
> Would be really interested to hear from Adam, Patrick, Sebastian and  
> others who are more well attuned to the internal dynamics of ALAC  
> discourse and decision making....
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill