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]