hi Je, On Jul 24, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> 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. That's interesting. I've inquired on the Euralo list, let's see if there's any clues forthcoming. > > From: William Drake <[log in to unmask]> > Date: July 24, 2009 7:23:07 PM GMT+02:00 > To: Euralo Members List <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Comment on Stakeholder Charters by Cheryl Langdon-Orr > ALAC Chair 2007-2009 > > Hi, > > As a member of both the NCUC and Euralo/ALAC environments, I must > say I was a little puzzled by this statement in the public comment > period on the NCSG charter. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00067.html > > The statement begins by noting that "This is not a formal or > ratified statement or comment per se but rather a synopsis of those > previously provided in various fora to date" (lots of writing like > that, a bit hard to read, but whatever...). I don't recall the > previous discussions on Euralo or other ALAC-related lists that are > being synopsized in which people endorsed a narrowly constituency- > based model for the NCSG, which will result in fragmentation, > politicization, and ineffectiveness. To the contrary, my > recollection, which is refreshed by Cheryl's comment, is that ALAC > people actually rejected the CP80 proposal, which embodied such a > model. And yet the new SIC/staff version embodies pretty much the > same model, and now it is apparently ok and to be supported! > > I'm sure the SIC/staff will be pleased to have at least one reliable > expression of support for the dysfunctional model that has been > rejected by hundreds of individuals and organizations over two > public comment periods. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters > and http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters. And of > course, everyone's entitled to their own opinion and bits of self- > aggrandizing historical revisionism. What I'm unable to figure out > is whether that opinion is widely shared among the people whose > views purportedly are being synopsized, and when and where this > support was expressed. Did I just miss the memo? Can anyone explain? > > Would be really interested to hear from Adam, Patrick, Sebastian and > others who are more well attuned to the internal dynamics of ALAC > discourse and decision making.... > > Thanks, > > Bill