ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC response to sTLD RFP

  • To: wessorh@xxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC response to sTLD RFP
  • From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:32:59 +0000
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Rick Wesson wrote:

where is the charter for the ALAC? (see [1]) Why is the ALAC making recomendations that are not within the scope of the group? It appears that the ALAC is using its position as a "soap box" so its participiants can speak on issues of personal concern.

   a. The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to
      consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as
      they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.

Who is providing advice on the ICANN activity of delegating TLDs, as seen from the point of view (and incorporating the comments of) the individual Internet users?
IMHO, nobody.
Therefore we have two choices:
- exclude completely any advice
- try to put together a position in the short time we have that can take into account the maximum extent possible of the Internet community AtLarge opinions

Given the fact that:
- we, in ALAC, decided for option 2)
- we don't have the money to send press releases and advertisement on the media to solicit input
- past experience shows that if we start from the blank sheet it will take months only to get the first sentence

We (ALAC) thought that the best way was to draft something and use it as a strowman to solicit input (comments, addition, deletion, modification). I am personally convinced of the severe limitations of this approach, but I was also convinced that it was still better than nothing.
Now, seeing that the debate is more focused on the procedural aspects than on the contents, I am much less convinced of this. However, I really appreciate the folks who provided substantial comments.

PLEASE, go back and work on why ICANN has no membership, or ponder the question of how the "At-Large" can participate insted of using your "soap box" for personal comment.

So you see the two things as alternative. I don't share your opinion, I believe we can at the same time try to work on having higher participation, and provide comments from the individual user POV. In fact, I do believe that one reinforces the other: the capability of presenting positions is a factor that favours participation. Of course, for the time being the position represents only the 15 people in ALAC, plus whoever added his/her comments. At the end of the process we might be lucky if we hit the 100 mark. This only means that the Board will give a very low weight to the comment. But we must start from somewhere.

If you feel that I have incorrectly assessed your position you may provide to this list, documentation of your outreach efforts and methodology for determining the position that you conclude in your paper below.

You are right in assessing that very little has been done from our part to document our outreach effort, and I do believe that we have to do something about. But the forum for disseminating this information cannot be the GA list, but should be the ALAC Web Site. Of course this and other lists will be informed of the relevant activities and given the relevant pointers, but please stop assuming that, due to the fact that two ALAC members are past Chairpersons of this GA, this list will become the preferred means of communication with the individual user community.

If you have the voice of the people of the "at-large" prove it.

We don't, and we don't claim that we do (for the time being).
But we claim that we attempt at giving some voice, in a scenario in which there is none.

Best regards

Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>