Re: [ga] Letter to the ALAC

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all former DNSO GA members other interested
stakeholders/users,

  Who is the "We" in  your comments/remarks Danny?  Are you purporting
to speak for all of the GA?  Surely not...  None the less much of your
remarks and comments below to me at least have a right of accuracy
to them.  I would however disagree with the idea that the self review
you mention regarding the GNSO network council.  Such a review
process can be helpful and constructive if one is dealing with basically

honest members of such a council. However as has been noticed,
commented upon frequently and thereby documented, the GNSO Council
to which you refer are not completely made up of honest and trustworthy
council members, much the same as the ALAC is not as well...

  I know that you are interested is serving and have solicited GA
participants in voting for you to become a member of the ALAC
committee, but try to be a bit more complete and therefore honest
when purporting to represent GA participants, which you surely
do not.

Danny Younger 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827