Re: [ga] A Call for Resignations

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

 Danny's call for resignations is well justified.  See Vittorio's comments
and my responses below his...

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Sotiris Sotiropoulos ha scritto:
> > Be Well All,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
> > P.S.  Yes, even you Vittorio.
>
> I know, thanks.
>
> P.S. (as a totally personal addendum)
> I would note that the ALAC holds closed internal meetings (closed in the
> sense that the public isn't explicitly invited and that we reserve the
> right to ask someone to leave if we think it's the case, but in a number
> of occasions we had ALS representatives and other people attending), but
> it also holds public meetings at each and every ICANN meeting. There is
> ample opportunity to talk with us, but we only meet three times a year and
> we definitely need to make good use of the scarce and costly physical
> meeting time we have (as, in the end, its costs are paid by registrants).

  What registrants?

>
>
> Anyway, if the rest of the Committee agrees I think we might accept
> comments (with a time limit) during our internal meeting in Mar del Plata.
> Nonetheless, I would hope that speaking time is used for a quiet and
> productive discussion among ourselves, rather than for shouting matches or
>   name calling the Committee members.

Are you implying that at the last ALSC/ICANN meeting Danny shouted
and called committee members names?

>
>
> On the more general issue of At Large representation, I think that in the
> ALAC approach some things work, others don't - just as in the original
> flat election model. Especially, we did score bad in keeping dialogue open
> with our constituents (but also, I must confess that we never saw hordes
> of constituents willing to interact with us).

  Why would "constituents" [ Whomever they are in the ALAC sense ]
wish to interact when there is no open mailing list, no transparent process,
and no open membership for individuals, just the same old club organizational
members?

> We possibly overestimated
> our availability of resources, and even if we did a lot of useful work,
> and we did get some results (the most important one, in my opinion, is
> that the At Large is still on the map, and it has been reinstated as a
> fully entitled participant stakeholder in ICANN, something that was almost
> lost in 2002), in the end it seems that the present mechanism cannot
> manage to do all the necessary outreach, make the RALO incorporation
> process go on, struggle with ICANN and operational problems to keep us
> alive and running, and keep up with the policy work.

  Well first you actually have to do some actual WORK.  Than you have
to have an effective funding method.  What does "a fully entitled participant
stakeholder in ICANN" mean if there are no individual members and still
call it the ALAC?  How can such a designation be a "atlarge" if it has
no individual members?  How can such a entity be representative of
any and all stakeholders/users as it purports to be?

>
>
> We now have to assume that there still is significant interest in
> participating in ICANN, it's just not showing up because most people don't
> like the present participatory structure, and there are not enough
> resources to create and sustain participation.

If you have individual members, and a funding method, you will have
the resources.  If not, you will more than likely never have enough
resources.

> (This assumption will be
> strongly challenged to delete us from ICANN once again, so we'll need a
> lot of people to support it.)

  Well if so, you should have listened long ago and had an open membership
to individuals.  As you, Esther, and Denise didn't listen and take head,
support will be less than forthcoming...

>
>
> I think we should use the unique chance provided by WGIG to push for a new
> reform in the way civil society (which, contrarily to what some of you
> seem to understand, doesn't just mean NGOs, but also individuals) is
> represented in ICANN. However, we need to come up with a clear reform
> proposal, possibly in Mar del Plata.

Reform? Well reform would have not been necessary had you Vittorio
not pushed to in the beginning to exclude individual membership.

>
>
> At the Cape Town and KL meetings, we already had joint public meetings
> with the NCUC, most of which were devoted to discussions on this point. We
> are trying to set one up in Mar del Plata, and hopefully that might lead
> to a common proposal. You are welcome to participate in the discussion,
> which is starting to happen also online, in many different places (perhaps
> the WSIS CS IG Caucus is the most comprehensive one).

Why is a "proposal" needed?  All that is needed is opening up the ALAC
to any and all individuals that wish to join and participate, which means
changing the membership restrictions or rather eliminating them all
together.

>
>
> I think it does not make any sense for "us" - meaning users and
> non-commercial interests in general - to be split between a minority
> constituency in the GNSO and a powerless Advisory Committee. At the last
> WGIG meeting, I and other civil society members spoke up and got the group
> to agree that civil society participation in ICANN needs to be enhanced.
> Whether that happens will depend on our capacity to push for credible
> proposals and in the will by the world's governments (hopefully greater
> than the one showed by the DoC/NTIA in 2002, Mr. Williams) to support us.

If you are suggesting that other governments are to aid in the funding
efforts in this [ above ] remark, your dreaming.  Not likely to happen.
The ALAC will need to garner in a reasonable and individually inexpensive
way, it's own funding.  Here is one place where the DOC/NTIA is
correct in their approach.

>
>
> Anyway, thanks for pushing - I don't share your approach and I don't think
> it's ever been productive, but still we need people to be vocal about the
> importance of greater participation by individual users in ICANN.

No thanks to you, Esther who has thankfully departed, or Denise,
there was no individual participation from the very beginning of the
ALAC.  Hence to a great degree it's problems.  They are self
and intentionally inflicted.

>
>
> Ciao,
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...

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