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