[ga] A Private Think-Tank

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bret,

Re:  "I can't think of any reason that an organization
wouldn't want to join."

I don't want to be glib, so I won't merely throw out a
set of responses that point to ICANN's continued lack
of legitimacy, the heinous expulsion of all
publicly-elected At-Large Directors, the continued
lack of At-Large representation, the continued
disregard for public input, the lack of any open
public comment intake mechanisms, the lack of
transparency at every level within the organization,
the lack of adequate accountability mechanisms, the
exclusion of registrants from policy-formulating
bodies, and so on...

Instead, I will relate to you a story.  When the ALAC
process began, the very first applicant for at-large
structure status was Societa' Internet ISOC Italy. 
The application was tendered by Vittorio Bertola on
behalf of this group.  Vittorio promptly set up a
forum within ISOC-Italy dedicated to ICANN-related
topics.  Guess what?  After one year he finally
receives his second comment -- it was from the
president of ISOC-Italy advising that the forum was
being shut down owing to a total lack of interest. 

Bret, you can talk about about your "organizations" as
much as you like, but we will always know that as it
pertains to ICANN, there is no ISOC-Italy -- there is
only Vittorio Bertola. There is no organizational
involvement of FITUG, there is only Thomas Roessler. 
There are no contributions from Alfa-Redi, there is
only Erick Iriarte Ahon.  There is no debate on the
part of the Internet Users Network (Japan), there is
only Izumi (and his forum is equally bereft of
comments).

Sorry to say, but you are tacitly abetting a
poorly-disguised fraud, and other organizations
clearly recognize the fraudulent character of the
ALAC.  Why in your own mind do you think that Wendy
Seltzer's EFF organization has never joined?  Why
isn't the CDT a member of ALAC?  Why isn't CPSR a
member of the group?  Why hasn't Markle become a
member?
Surely, they must have some legitimate reasons, don't
you think?

What we have in the ALAC is nothing more than a
private think tank on GNSO topics (and I say that
because the ALAC never addresses issues such as the
conservation of IPv4 address space, or asks questions
such as why doesn't ICANN have a contract with the
.int registry, or are there any risks posed by the
recently announced future registry service
enhancements to the .us namespace -- GNSO topics are
its only area of interest).  

The ALAC serves as a counterpoint to the GNSO Council
that no longer bothers to debate much of anything.  So
why not just call it what it is rather than
maintaining the pretense that this is somehow a
collectivity of organizations, and that we need even
more organizational involvement?

You know what, if we need more non-commercial
organizations in ICANN, then why not donate your ALAC
outreach dollars directly to the NCUC (which by rights
would be their proper home)?

Bret, we're all trying to help ICANN do a good job of
formulating policy, but please get off this ALAC
carousel -- it just spins round and round eating up
dollars, wasting time, and producing no tangible
results other than the occasional commentary of a
private think-tank.  






	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com