ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: icannatlarge.org (was RE: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC re sponse to sTLD RFP)

  • To: Steven Heath <Steven.Heath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: icannatlarge.org (was RE: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC re sponse to sTLD RFP)
  • From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:17:29 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <1465A9A047FF514D95217900DBB8395401524D30@WLGEXCH01>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

At 23:29 28/08/03, Steven Heath wrote:
If people think that being asked to vote on something is the same as trying to seek a wide range of views or trying to gain consensus then you are grossly mistaken.

It is ironic that some of the people accusing ALAC of not trying to gain discussion before issuing a draft document are those same people that are "involved" with icannatlarge.org.

Dear Steven,
everyone is "involved" in or by ALAC and icannatlarge.org. Our concern is to be "involved" in the most efficient manner. The way I read the things is that a small kernel of advisors wants to inform ICANN on what the atlarge may think and therefore ask them to speak up. Only the most vocable will do it - if they think it of use. For example I did on UDRP and was not even acknowledged.

Now, a substantial number of these @large are members of the icannatlarge.org organization which prefers to organize a two level questionning : collect matter for question (as does the ALAC) form the most vocable (or Workiong Groups) and to ask everyone their opinion.

One can only say that the ALAC method may include opinions from people who are not members of icannatlarge.org and that these opinions are not validated as the opinion of any @large group.

This does not mean they or of no interest. But they do not match the pupose of ALAC. On the other hand, should the more complex icannatlarge.org system come to fruition, its positions will be the positions of a significant @large group, but will probably not be accepted as such by ICANN.


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