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.htmlgoes > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------