On 24 Mar 2013, at 11:14, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> I apologize for the inadvertent -- and in some cases mistaken -- diversion into the pointless "who represents users" debate. I am hoping for a reasoned dialogue that lets us work together, in understanding the differences and advocating the commonalities.

I like the "who represents users" debate.  I also I don't find the discussions about the different purposes of AC vs SO discussions pointless.  I agree we need to find the commonalities between the groups so we can work together when it is to mutual satisfaction.  And personally being in both groups, it decreases my own personal cognitive dissonance for us to find our commonalities, though I admit I find cognitve dissonance a good thought motivator.

I also don't find the discussions about who represent who pointless.  That is one of the still largely unexplored topics.  Why, I have even heard GAC members tell me that they were the only legitimate representatives of Users, and you can just imagine my reaction to that one!  And ask any Registrar or Registry, they will tell you they do what they do because of the users.  And I accept his because I know that if the users are not happy, the users will not hand over their hard earned income, and I accept that profit is their prime motivation.

I even find the discussions about what it means to be non-commercial valuable.  It is a rift that runs through the NCSG, were we have nuanced differences in the views.  And as a cross-cultural topic, it is very very difficult to determine which person or group is non-commercial.  That is for example one of the key issues we have in some of the PDPs, like the IGO-INGO discussions where some of us beleive that million dollar salaries for CEOs, business class tickets for board members and senior staff, and bank accounts with millions and sometimes billions of assets, tend to interfere with the non-commercial status of an organization; while others beleive that is nonsense.  So the discussions and better understand of various perspectives of what non-commercial, non-profit, not for profit, civil society, users etc mean are critical to our engagement with ICANN, reputedly a non-commercial, not for profit, NGO.  

To avoid such discussions is to avoid discussing the very nature of our stakeholder groups and our roles and responsibilities in ICANN.  It is, to some extent, the topic the ALAC is trying to get us to discuss in their R3 proposal.

Sure the tone sometimes get a bit heated, but as long as we aren't calling each other too many mean nasty names, I figure it is just  the nature of strong opinions.  Sure, we can learn to repress ourselves, but that make the world bland and eliminates information and honest sharing.  So while I accept the way the rough and tumble sometime scares people (even makes me cry sometimes), I would hope that a modicum of civility would be sufficient.

> 
> If that's not possible I won't bother you again with this.
> 

That would be a pity.

avri