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
>