ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


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

Re: [ga] Vittorio Bertola on the At-Large

  • To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Vittorio Bertola on the At-Large
  • From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:38:53 -0500
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <20050301152537.43361.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com>
  • Organization: Hermes Network Inc.
  • References: <20050301152537.43361.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com>
  • Reply-to: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)

Danny Younger wrote:

Excerpt from comments of Vittorio Bertola in "A draft for ALAC comment on ICANN Strategic Plan"

http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/pdfqaxb5Jde3O.pdf

It appears that there is no longer a document at this address... hmm.

While ALAC is just starting its own internal review and therefore it is too early to make conclusive statements at this stage, we are concerned about the current state of AtLarge in its Outreach and policy involvement as described in the Strategic Plan. As mentioned above, individual users are not professionals in ICANNïs area of business. No ALAC members, for example, receive any compensation for the time they spend for ICANN activities, unlike employees or management of TLD operators or registrars or ISPs whose ICANN involvement is part and parcel of their business.

But this was what you *knowingly* accepted and went forward with when you agreed to institute your ALAC, Vittorio. I didn't hear you complaining about being a volunteer last year, Vittorio. This whole affair smacks of the same disgusting side-mouthed swindle that Greg Burton 'chairmanship' of WG-Review represented. At least Mr. Burton had the good sense to disappear after he presented his 'abortion' of a Review, let's see about you, Vittorio. Will you slink away too?



Yet, as the Figure 4 Identified Objectives from ICANN Stakeholders on page 15 illustrates, only AtLarge communities have relevance to all 11 issues in the table; while government, technical community and gTLD have 10, ccTLD have 7 and Address community have 5. This means, while AtLarge is made up by voluntary or pro bono individuals, they have to deal with more issues than any other constituency.

And yet, you still have the addlebrained audacity to ask a little further on:


"Does ICANN need At Large and public participation into its policy development process? And, if so, how?"

Obviously, Vittorio, your faulty metaphysics have led you to a skewed epistemology wherewith you cannot possibly formulate a consistent ethical framework from which to cognize and act.


AtLarge is distributed geographically, and the current ALAC has three members from each of the five ICANN regions; with only one staff for all, it is no question that the input or impact of AtLarge is severely limited, resulting in scattered, shallow activities, mostly due to nonsystematical activity by individual volunteers.

Is "nonsystematical" your way of saying *nonexistent*? I hope so, because a spade can never be anything but a spade... Are you aware of the Law of Identity, Vittorio?


Due to several factors, there is yet little interaction among ALS members, and also between ALS and ALAC members.

Over two years later and there is still "little interaction among ALS members, and also between ALS and ALAC members." Well, considering the Internet makes interaction so much more convenient for *millions* of people every day, one cannot help but wonder what were the "everal factors" you allude to, Vittorio, but do not clearly state?


Of course it is primarily ALACïs own responsibility, and we are struggling to find the right way to exit from this situation; however, in doing so we cannot exclude the possibility of reaching the conclusion that the current ALS/RALO/ALAC framework may not take off, and that the present mechanisms f! or input and participation by the general public into ICANN policy making processes ï the ALAC and the GNSO NCUC ï are too burdensome and powerless to actually motivate a reasonable number of institutions and individuals to participate actively and regularly in the long term.

Well now, that is an interesting way to put it, Vittorio. It took you over two years to figure it out? Ha! Obviously you are a shameless con.



The assumption at the roots of the current AtLarge framework as designed in the last ICANN reform was to expect individual users to selforganize, bottomup, to participate in ICANNïs activities.

WHAT!?!?! Obviously, you are ill. Or worse, plain old skullduggery...

Skepticism did exist at that time whether sufficient amount of real interest from individual users would mount to the visible and active level or not.

Where were you when 0ver 75,000 registered AtLarge members voted in 2000? I was one of those 75,000, were you?


We need to revisit this point seriously, and we may need to ask the following question: Does ICANN need At Large and public participation into its policy development process? And, if so, how?

Two years ago you went ahead with 'your' ALAC scheme and you had all the answers. Now, you're even questioning the entire initiative? Wht about questioning your part in it for a change?



We believe that ICANN needs a strong and direct participation by a conspicuous number of active Internet users, as well as broader interaction with the global Internet users community. We believe this to be the only viable way to ensure that the resources that ICANN is tasked to manage will not be captured by the specific interests of any country, company or constituency, without involving the traditional governmental frameworks used in the preInternet era.

All of which means 'you' believe what, exactly?


We will continue to be involved with this consultation process and try to be as constructive as possible, despite some negative or critical tones we showed above. We thank you for your attention and patience.

The best thing, the only 'honourable' thing left for you to do is to resign and slink away to your lair. You have slithered as far as you're going to slither.


Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos


--
This email includes a valid digital signature which positively distinguishes the sender and serves to ensure that the message has not been altered since it was sent. For more information on having your identity validated for use in your own Personal Certificate visit the THAWTE Web of Trust (WOT): https://www.thawte.com/wot/index.html


This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately.
begin:vcard
fn:Sotiris Sotiropoulos
n:Sotiropoulos;Sotiris
email;internet:sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tel;work:416.422.1034
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature



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