Good morning,

On Jul 24, 2009, at 9:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Bill, stop writing to this list and send it to the public comment  
> list. Just cut and paste. It will have a devastating effect on their  
> Big Lie.

It's closed now, but I just looked at your post on the PC space and I  
think it's fair to say you covered the main points with aplomb, hoss.   
Ouch!

Probably not going to help build NCUC-ALAC cooperation at the  
leadership level, but then again I see no real interest from that side  
anyway.  The question is, is there any possibility that this could  
help stir some rumblings from bellow over there, or is the pull of  
inertia just too much?  If you actually read the ALAC list there are a  
lot of progressive, like-minded people in ALAC who agree with our  
broad orientation on many fronts.  I simply cannot understand why they  
allow top down, undemocratic expressions of what "we" think based on  
little to no actual dialogue and general megalomania.  It's like  
freakin ISOC!  Is everyone just too busy to give a damn?  Conflict  
averse?  Bought off by free travel, copious staff support, etc (oops,  
sorry, did I say that out loud)?

Entirely hypothetical comparison: If Robin started parading around  
behaving in the same manner, I strongly suspect there'd be revolt and  
a change of leadership.

To the extent that ALAC is held up by ICANN as the "good" CS  
contingent worth listening to and supporting, unlike us  
"uncooperative" types, and we are told that it's our duty to involve  
at large people in the NCSG and our fault if they don't choose to do  
so, this turf-based power gaming could be an ongoing problem for the  
NCSG.

And yes I know this is a public list.

Bill

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:57 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Charter drafts - and the related  
>> process so
>> far => NCUC/ALAC
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> jeanette
>> The former is despite the
>>> fact that ALAC earlier disavowed the CP80 proposal, which the SIC/ 
>>> staff
>>> version actually mirrors in important respects.  Go ahead and figure
>>> that one out.  It is notable too that this is despite the fact  
>>> that ALAC
>>> leadership has not sought any sort of dialogue with NCUC to arrive  
>>> at a
>>> shared understanding of the alternative models, and despite the  
>>> lack of
>>> any real dialogue within ALAC on the relative merits of the two  
>>> models
>>> geared to eliciting a broadly supported verdict.  I have feet in  
>>> both
>>> worlds as an NCUC councilor and a member of Euralo's board, and I at
>>> least did not see any effort from the top to seriously canvass ALAC
>>> members opinions before arriving at a stance in our names.  All I  
>>> have
>>> seen on the ALAC lists and other lists like that of the Media  
>>> Democracy
>>> Coalition has been messages to the effect that civil society people
>>> should work in the first instance through ALAC, not NCUC or NCSG.   
>>> And
>>> yet the board has said it thinks at large structures should be  
>>> active in
>>> the future NCSG, and we get criticized for somehow failing to  
>>> include
>>> more ALS folks in our work, when of course from our side they're
>>> perfectly welcome and just don't choose to engage.
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm still a bit green (although after almost a year here this
>>> excuse is getting lame) but I simply fail to understand why people  
>>> can't
>>> see that ALAC and NCUC/NCSG have different and non-competing  
>>> functions
>>> and should be cross-pollinating and cooperating closely. Whatever  
>>> stuff
>>> went on in the past between whomever just doesn't cut it as an  
>>> excuse
>>> for continuing dysfunctionality today.  Indeed, when we have tried  
>>> to
>>> collaborate of late, as with the IRT, it has been clear that there's
>>> often quite a bit of overlap/harmony of view on substantive  
>>> matters.  So
>>> it's hard not to conclude that this is all about turf, personal  
>>> empires,
>>> and interpersonal relations, which is just adolescent and nuts.
>>>
>>> In any event, once the board has given us the charter and we've  
>>> decided
>>> how to respond, undertaking a serious NCUC/ALAC dialogue should be  
>>> high
>>> on the list of priorities, in my view.  It just doesn't work to  
>>> have one
>>> group actively undermining the other when both could be working  
>>> toward
>>> common objectives.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> Senior Associate
>>> Centre for International Governance
>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>  Development Studies
>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>> ***********************************************************