I agree, Robin -- this is why I said that this situation happens despite the great efforts of many people involved with ALAC. Unfortunately, the relationship with ICANN is conducted by some members in a way that makes these efforts frequently futile -- and these members seem to dominate the ALAC space, unfortunately. But this is my personal opinion, of course. --c.a. Robin Gross wrote: > I am also disappointed about how a couple people can sew divisiveness > for a whole group. But I think it is important to remember that most > individual members of the At-Large community share the same goals and > objectives as NCUC - to bring more users (including noncommercial) to > the table at ICANN and work for the public interest in Internet policy. > Yes, some can be just another commercial user or primarily useful to > staff rather than civil society, but many individuals in ALAC (I > believe) want the same things that we do. So we have to remember not to > characterize an entire group of well-meaning people just because a few > at the top work to create divisiveness within civil society for their > own political benefit. > > Robin > > > On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> No surprise... ALAC, in synthesis, was a creation of ICANN senior staff >> and board, is paid by ICANN, and remains as a representation of the >> impossible (the "at large user"), i.e, a prime space for the >> manipulations Amodio describes. This despite the great people who >> genuinely try to build something meaningful out of this mess -- but >> cannot avoid these manipulations by the higher power. >> >> In this situation, I wonder how people sitting in both spaces (NCUC and >> ALAC) feel about it, and in particular about the incredible manipulation >> by staff (with ALAC's consent) of the proposal to build NCSG. >> >> From the beginning of the century (ALAC times), I did not join ALAC >> because I could not and cannot understand a user (at large or whatever >> color you paint him/her) dissociated of social, political and economic >> insterests, which are in turn represented within ICANN by the >> constituencies. I mean, there is this "at large" ethereal user who is... >> what exactly? Everyone but the ones represented by the other >> constituencies??? A group of future saints? The RALO gimmick changes >> what exactly? >> >> But it gets worse -- ALAC seems to be moving, through the manipulations >> Amodio mentions, to become just a pro-business territory. >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> Jorge Amodio wrote: >>>> Unfortunately, people do associate Milton with NCUC. And as changing >>>> such >>>> perceptions is hard, it's best to just say he doesn't speak for us. >>> >>> The first two words of the Subject on Milton's email read "My opinion." >>> >>> While true that some people may perceive Milton's comments as an >>> NCUC position, the same people surely know that the IGP blog is not >>> the "official" NCUC site or way of communication of NCUC positions >>> on anything related to ICANN. >>> >>> I'd be very concerned if we all agree 100% all the time, having different >>> points of view and expressing them is what creates dialog, which is the >>> most important vehicle for building consensus about particular issues. >>> >>> What's really clear, at least to me, and the standard disclaimer that >>> this >>> is my opinion applies, is that something is going on between ALAC >>> (better said some particular people from ALAC) and NCUC. >>> >>> I've been participating also in ALAC, and to be frank I became amazed >>> about how the bottom-up process is being manipulated and the Chair >>> instead of providing general direction and let each RALO do its own >>> independent analysis, micromanages the entire process with support >>> from ICANN staff even in the creation of documents, where many times >>> the local folks only get to participate to say if they agree or not >>> with the >>> document. >>> >>> On the other hand, the current mechanics for ALS certification cast >>> (again this is my personal opinion) a big doubt about who/what >>> they really represent. >>> >>> It takes only a bunch of buddies, few bucks, and a little bit of >>> paperwork >>> and noiseware, to create a non-profit org and claim status as an ALS, >>> much easier if you know really well how the internals work and already >>> some of your buddies are in and ready to support you. >>> >>> I've seen ALSs without any track record, just recently created claiming >>> to be representative of the Internet users, well to be frank they are, >>> just them (I mean the ones that created the ALS). >>> >>> And this is happening right now, where former board members are >>> asking for certification for an ALS when the ink on the filings is still >>> wet, and besides the track record of particular individuals the >>> organization itself does not have any. >>> >>> I hope we can move away from this "he said, she said" non-sense >>> and focus on the issues. >>> >>> The agenda is packed (unfortunately I can't make it today to be on >>> the meeting), there are too many things going on, the new version >>> of the DAG will be published soon, its only a week until the JPA >>> ends and what? begins, the domainers are demanding immediate >>> implementation of the new gTLDs (VC capital drying?), there are >>> issues regarding scalability of the root zone and overall stability of >>> the DNS, Seoul is around the corner, and so on. >>> >>> My .02 >>> Jorge >>> > > > > > 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] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > >