I'm still waiting to ride in the Mystery Van!

:-)

On Jul 24, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:

> As someone who is coming newly to the situation, I found Harold Feld's
> recent comments illuminative.
>
> http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/1606
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]>  
> wrote:
> My view has always been (since this "at large user" thing was  
> conceived)
> that the so-called "At-Large User Constituency" is a Frankenstein. The
> real world moves and revolves around interest groups, not a linear,  
> flat
> concoction called "the user" -- and of course different interest  
> groups
> end up controlling ALAC's views and actions. It was a clever way to
> generate an illusion of participation, this is all. So no surprise  
> that
> they move from one position to another quite easily -- in this sense,
> they are quite "at large"...
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> William Drake wrote:
> > I fired off a comment as well during last night's dreary council
> > meeting.  Awakening this morning to see the net effects, it's  
> clear that
> > the responses submitted were overwhelmingly favorable to our  
> position.
> > Not that this necessarily will mean anything to the SIC/staff.
> > Unfortunately, most comments dwelt more on the procedural aspect of
> > SIC/staff discarding our work without comment or dialogue rather  
> than on
> > precisely why their alternative will not work.  We've made those  
> points
> > before but they've never responded, so it might have been good if  
> more
> > of us had reiterated them and demanded specific explanations.  The
> > official NCUC response
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/ 
> msg00061.html goes
> > some way in this direction, but whether this one intervention  
> will yield
> > reasoned replies in the staff synthesis or beyond---I wouldn't  
> put money
> > on it.  The board will make its decision soon and I suspect that  
> they'll
> > stick with the SIC approach rather than doing a 180 turn just  
> because
> > the little people who will have to live with their charter don't  
> like it.
> >
> > 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).  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
> > ***********************************************************
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------




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]