Re: [ga] Letter to the ALAC

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

 Very good point here Eric.  Well done.  I hope it is also as well
taken...

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    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

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