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>, "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: icannatlarge.org (was RE: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC re sponse to sTLD RFP)
  • From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 07:39:20 +0100
  • References: <>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jefsey's comments are first-class and well-balanced.

A top-down structure, without democratic representation, and based on
'nominations' and 'appointments' is by no means as reliable as the group
organising bottom-up at Icann At Large.

Moreover there is a thousandfold more participation in the mailig list
discussions at icannatlarge, compared to the virtually uninhabited mailing
list at ALAC.

There is also Jefsey's other point, that when you do speak up to ICANN on a
relevant issue, you can expect to get ignored (as Jefsey was) so you have to
question whether you're just supporting a facade run for ICANN's own
benefit. On a number of issues and policies, the ICANN Board has simply
ignored consensus positions. Moreover, it is infamously unresponsive when
challenged on awkward issues (take, for example, Dan Halloran's abject
failure to even acknowledge my serious, demonstrated concerns of registrar
abuse on New TLDs... 500 days later, he still hasn't even had the courtesy
to reply... so you have to ask, what was my effort for?)

Similarly, when ICANN set up the ALSC to propose ways of developing the At
Large, it did not like the outcome, so it the recommendations were ignored.

Fortunately, the 'legacy' At Large is moving forward with its
self-organisation and there are always busy mailing lists, discussing issues
of governance. But this lively participation has absolutely *nothing* to do
with ALAC's organisation.

I agree with Jefsey, that the Icann At Large organisation is a highly
significant At Large entity, capable of offering an alternative to ALAC,
which should prove much more attractive to ordinary individual users.

ALAC is ICANN's initiative.

But it was ICANN who expelled the At Large from their Board Romm, wasn't it?


Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Steven Heath <Steven.Heath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxx>

> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> of ALAC. On the other hand, should the more complex icannatlarge.org
> come to fruition, its positions will be the positions of a significant
> @large group, but will probably not be accepted as such by ICANN.
> jfc

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