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

[James Seng <jseng@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have spoken with vb on several occasion and I feel he is also 
sincerely trying to do something good for the community.

There are friends and foes on both side and IMHO, vb is on the side of 
all those who wants ALAC to be more open, transparent and focus in 
doing good in ICANN.

-James Seng

On 02-Mar-05, at AM 12:48, Hugh Dierker wrote:

> This man speaks with too much ignorance to be believable or 
> trustworthy. I do not like going piece by piece usually but this 
> warrants such a look; So I look at its' "wrongness" step by step.
>
> Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> 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
>
>
> 3. On AtLarge
>
>
> 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 ICANN’s 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.
>
> This is wrong.  I am just one example. I am a professional in ICANNs 
> area of business. I get paid to write disclaimers and warranties and 
> privacy statements and review insurance type matters relating to 
> Internet sites. Deletion of Domain Names and IP concepts and privacy 
> rights of individuals versus corporations etc. etc. is certainly part 
> of my business and I get paid to stay informed and alert to 
> liabilities in such matters. It sounds more like Bertola is making 
> excuses for his own malfeasance by laziness. All successful business 
> spend money to understand the consumer base to whom they sell. Bertola 
> has it backwards, it is ALAC blocking of individual professionals that 
> prevents them from participating, not payment.
>
> 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.
>
> This reveals a total lack of understanding of the "global" nature of 
> the internet and how interrelated disciplines must interact to create 
> networks of seemless accessibility, security and reliability for 
> users, or shall we say consumers. This guy totally misses the point 
> that all business relies on the ultimate consumer - individual users 
> and consumers - to make the internet successful in a 70 billion $USD 
> ecommerce economy. Especially ccTLDs in developing countries require 
> the savy and understanding of what diverse users and capabilities 
> require, especially in the hit driven numbers relating to addresses 
> and their desireability. He cannot possibly understand search engines 
> and Usenets and traffic.
>
>
> 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. Due to several 
> factors, there is yet little interaction among ALS members, and also 
> between ALS and ALAC members. Of course it is primarily ALAC’s 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 – the ALAC and the GNSO NCUC – are too burdensome and 
> powerless to actually motivate a reasonable number of institutions and 
> individuals to participate actively and regularly in the long term.
>
> This is double talk and excuse making. When was the last time Bertola 
> posted a public message on any ICANN area? Certainly not here. He 
> blocks participation by mandates and then whines when he has none. 
> This is outright falsity under a very thin veil.
>
> 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 ICANN’s activities. 
> 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. 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?
>
> This is a lie. The interest is there and Bertola knows it. He has 
> helped to prevent it at every turn. Why can't someone just join the 
> At-large community as an individual? Because ALAC will not cede their 
> weak authority to democracy.
>
> 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.
>
> Anyone paying any attention know that simply allowing individual 
> participation and getting rid of a top down appointed ALAC will 
> accomplish this goal. We have already beaten to death and beyond the 
> poor horse of validation and voting.
>
> 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.
>
> Blocking willing contributors such as Richard Henderson and Danny 
> Younger and Sotiris proves this last promise to be an outright lie. 
> Bertola should show one ounce of ethical behaviour and resign.
>
> Dr. Eric Hugh Dierker
>
>  Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com