Re: [ga] More ALAC Follies

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I do not think I understand the platform here.
  It would appear to be the suggestion of a multinational Individual Users Association.
  However it looks like groups would be invited. It also appears that it is suggested that membership and or positions be segregated and or limited.
  Certainly looking back to past inequities helps no one, one twit. And obviously as participants around this fora have long done; criticize rather than offer solutions. It would be better to move forward.
  e

"M. Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  At 00:10 28/11/2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
>The truth is that the individual users who were actively engaged in ICANN
>affairs and participated in discussions have largely given up, because they
>never asked for ALAC in the first place.

Richard,
criticising Vittorio is of no interest. The people who are left on 
this GA list all made mistakes (I make no difference between him and 
you). and we all tried very hard in what we thought good. Are we so 
aged to continue to dispute for years instead of taking advantage 
together from our experience and achievements? Vittorio wrote me 
after the Vienna meeting where he saved the @large concept asking if 
he should have accepted to deal with ICANN. I told him yes. I 
supported him as a Panel Chair. Until ...... I fought dearly Danny, 
Sotoris crucified me, I had to fire Joop from his own IDNO, etc. all 
this was good for ICANN. Do you really want to continue for years to 
please ICANN?

The problem is not with us, not with ICANN. It is being useful to 
something. Not being of use to an organisation which is of no use is 
not very exciting. With Abel we had incorporated an ATLARGE 
organisation. We can have a banking account, a payment gateway, start 
a real simple organization. And impose ourselves where there is 
something real to do (IETF societal filtering and users QA, and 
Internet Governance Forum users network representation), action by 
negotiation and catalysis rather than by protestation.

Obviously there is an US Legacy Governance QA: Danny carries it 
well, and you assist. This is not really of interest to 90% of the 
Internet users, but you would have more weight if it was part of a 
true international organization. A true international organization in 
the IGF would certainly benefit from a non-Governmental US user 
representation.

Abel, I plan an IGFTF/IGFAB/IFGSG structure to represent IGF users 
members with Internet entities of global impact (IANA, IETF, NSF new 
technology, RSSAC, Unicode, ISOC, NTIA/IANA). It can be 
administratively _hosted_ by ATLARGE we could activate as foreseen:a 
common administrative base. Would you follow? Who else could share in?

Richard, would you this time join us and bring back our domain 
name? ALAC people are individually welcome who are also interested 
in users? Sotiris, would you take over the site management? Joop 
would you work on the IGFTF Draft with us (light By-Laws included). 
Dassa, if you are around would you join in the administration. But we 
would need to have a balanced representation by countries and languages.

Comments welcome.
jfc



  


		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.