Re: [ga] Letter to the ALAC

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Danny,
 
Please cut to the quick, quickly here and stop obviscating with diplodoublespeek.
You want the ALAC to run this list. Why? And what will happen down the road if it does?
Why legitamate them further when they deny individual participation except those annointed from on high? Do you want only domain name holders to have any voice? And who is the we here?
 
Eric

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear members of the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee,
 
As a participant in the ICANN process, I have noted those occasions when community representatives have convened to draft measures designed to guide a future course of action; I have also noted that these well-intentioned plans crafted by experienced, serious-minded and knowledgeable people will occasionally fail when confronted with operational realities.  Allow me to illustrate by way of an example:
The Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group composed of Rita A. Rodin (chair), Marilyn Cade, Guillermo Carey, Caroline Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff Neuman, Bruce Tonkin and Philip Sheppard devised a Prelimary Framework that was ultimately approved by the ICANN Board.  This Framework called for a structured policy development process with fixed timelines (approximately 60-90 days from inauguration to completion). 
To most of us it has been clear for some time now that the realities of the deliberation process within the GNSO Task Force environment have thwarted strict adherence to fixed timetables.  Members of the GNSO Council have recognized the deficiencies in their current approach and have petitioned the ICANN Board (by way of the "Required Changes to ICANN Bylaws" section of the GNSO Self Review document -- see http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec2-22dec04.pdf ) for modifications to the present approach that would allow for improvements to be made.  
 
We applaud the resolve of the membership of the GNSO Council to conduct their own self-review and we appreciate their wisdom in petitioning the ICANN Board for necessary changes to the bylaws. By the same token, we congratulate the members of the ALAC for having initiated a comparable course of self-review action (as noted in the comment posted by Izumi Aizu at http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00828.html ), and hope that the deficiencies in the framework that currently guides the activities of the ALAC will be corrected accordingly by necessary changes to the ICANN bylaws (with, of course, input being requested from the broader at-large community in much the same manner as GNSO Council members request input from their respective constituencies).
 
We participants on the General Assembly Discussion List remind the Interim ALAC that the General Assembly as a structural unit of the Names Supporting Organization was eliminated by the ICANN Board whose Evolution and Reform Committee noted that "the purpose of communication among the broader community that the General Assembly has served to date can be absorbed by the At Large Advisory Committee."   This course of action was subject to the caveat that "the GNSO Council should maintain the operation of the current General Assembly discussion lists until such time as the ALAC has shown it can take over that responsibility, and at that time the responsibility for a general public discussion list on ICANN issues should be transferred to the ALAC."
 
As we mailing list participants continue to see a value in the commentary that can be afforded by a cross-constituency venue such as the GA list (our archives are located at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/ ), we are prompted to ask if the now two-year old Interim ALAC believes that it has finally reached the level of maturity required to assume the responsibility for management of the General Assembly list.
 
If you believe that you are now prepared to take over such responsibility, I would ask you to inaugurate your management of the General Assembly list by facilitating public discussion on those changes to the ICANN bylaws that would be required to correct the deficiences in your current framework as well as those changes necessary to implement the consensus recommendation of the At-Large Study Committee:  "Based on our view of ICANN as a balance among developers, providers and users, we would recommend that the At-Large membership select a third of ICANN's Board."  see  http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
 
As you are representatives of the At-Large interest, we presume that have have no qualms about seeking to implement the consensus-driven recommendation of your peers to place elected at-large representatives on one third of the ICANN Board (especially at a time when the state of ICANN finances are no longer the issue that they once were).
 
We look forward to your participation on the General Assembly discussion list, and know that you understand that all efforts to continue promoting "participation without representation" are categorically rejected by the at-large community.
 
Best regards,
Danny Younger
dannyyounger[at]yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.