Bill, stop writing to this list and send it to the public comment list. Just cut and paste. It will have a devastating effect on their Big Lie. > -----Original Message----- > From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:57 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Charter drafts - and the related process so > far => NCUC/ALAC > > > 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 > > ***********************************************************