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