Re: [ga] ALAC statement on resolution of non-existing domain name s

[Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, at 23:29 [=GMT+0100], Richard Henderson wrote:

> ALAC would have much more credibility if it operated on a bottom-up
> democratic model, independent of ICANN patronage, instead of releasing
> statements from ICANN appointees. I agree with the main direction of the
> message, but the messenger is simply helping to add credibility to ICANN's
> palace coup and the expulsion of the At Large's elected Board members, by
> creating the impression that a top-down facade imposed by the Board is a
> credible alternative.

Two things can happen:

1. ALAC becomes something for real, bottom-up and everything.

2. ALAC will remain a committee appointed top-down. In that case it will
probably stop issuing decent statements, like the one on * and some others
before it. Then nobody will pay attention to the statements.

2 would be a pity, we would not have the good statements anymore. Perhaps
we do better to support them, not decry them for procedural reasons.
Neither the topics nor the furthering of a bottum-up ALAC will benefit
from constant reminders out of context like the one above.

Would it be helpful to support a statement by, e.g., China in some
international context, e.g. a UN meeting, and then adding in the same
line, that you do not actually recognize the Chinese government, since it
is not democratic? What cause would this approach serve? Insult the
Chinese? Give your opponents the opportunity to label your cause as
communist?

If you are fighting for something brought forward by the devil, you don't
mention you are Catholic.

> It is not.

It may become.

--