> 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
> ***********************************************************