Hello, I just filed a comment critical of Alan and Cheryl's statement. You can still comment if you wish. The system is still up > -----Original Message----- > From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:26 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Charter drafts - and the related process so > far => NCUC/ALAC > > 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