Re: [ga] new TLDs PDP and the ALS viewpoint

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why would any "At Large Structure" ***NOT*** want to contribute and
participate very actively in an issue as central to Individual Users as the
future development of TLDs?

It's obvious that every single one of these 27 or so "vibrant communities"
are going to be discussing the issue on their own "somewhat invisible"
websites and "non-existent" forums, and formulating their documents for
submission.

Alright, actually, it appears that most don't actually have web-based
mechanisms on their websites to do this. Oh, and a number don't even have
websites. Even though these are both conditions for meeting criteria to be
accepted as ALS's.

In fact, I'm not even sure some of these ALS's exist at all except withing
the "conceptual" imaginings of a few individuals.

But the important thing (from ICANN's point of view) is that they are "seen"
to exist. Um...

***WHERE ARE THEY???***

I'd like to thank Danny and other (***genuine***) Individuals who have
already posted and contributed far more on the subject of the New TLDs than
"all the At-Large Structures" in the whole wide world.

It says a lot for the value and relevance of a future Individual Users
constituency based on "actual" individuals, rather than "virtual" but
elusive "institutions". The actual input on this subject of New TLDs is
actually coming from these real "individuals" like Danny and Karl and
others.

If ALAC is real, rather than an ICANN facade, why isn't it working? Where is
the discussion from all these mystical groups? Why aren't individuals
allowed to be members of ALAC? Why isn't ALAC run by individuals rather than
institutions? Why lock the real individuals out?

Perhaps we shall be surprised (or amazed!). Perhaps the "dead" forum will
come to life. Perhaps each ALS will suddenly become a community of
discussing participants, with online presence, and open dialogue...

And yet...

It seems unlikely...

Because the ALAC and its structures are a figment of the imagination of
ICANN. They inhabit and role-play in ICANN's virtual world. The At Large
Structures make almost NO contributions to public discussion and debate.

They are...

...nowhere!

Thank you Danny and friends for keeping the voice of Individuals going.
Thank you, and isn't it about time the ***real*** At Large (ie: individuals)
stepped up to the line to form its own constituency?

Not the structure or identity that ICANN says that Individuals must follow,
but the self-determination of Individual Users to discuss together, organise
together, and agree from bottom up what representation and structure they
want for their own organisation. There can be a place for a real and lively
Individual User constituency within ICANN's structures, within its GNSO in
fact. The mechanisms are there for this to take place.

At the moment ALAC just isn't working, except for a handful of poor souls
like Vittorio, who have to draft their own ideas and then pretend that all
their invisible ALS's are providing the input.

It's nonsense. They aren't. The input is coming from Vittorio and Denise
Michel of ICANN and others appointed by ICANN to create the semblance of a
worldwide movement.

ALAC has failed. Individuals are locked out so they don't get involved.

Keep the comments and information coming please Danny. And everyone else.
You may be "just" individuals... but the difference is: You are actually
participating, and the At Large Structures are not.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson
www.atlarge.org
http://www.atlarge.org/individualusersconstituency.htm

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:04 PM
Subject: [ga] new TLDs PDP and the ALS viewpoint


> Vittorio,
>
> As you may be aware, there is discussion underway on
> the GA list pertaining to the GNSO new TLDs PDP.
> Assuredly we would all benefit from hearing the views
> of the certified At-Large structures.
>
> While I have noted Izumi's comment:  "So we should not
> miss the opportunity to bring their voices to the
> process, or do outreach, and not make the "late-comer"
> complaints such as "oh we didn't know that before...
> ", I have not seen a corresponding initiative on the
> part of the Committee to ensure the receipt of
> at-large input.
>
> The last cycle of discussions on the proposed .com
> settlement yielded absolutely no ALS input whatsoever
> (and that issue was undeniably the one issue of the
> year that managed to grab everyone's attention... that
> is, everyone except the ALS community).
>
> As I imagine that the Committee is indeed working
> overtime to obtain necessary feedback from the
> certified structures (even though you might not
> actually be discussing such matters on your list),
> could I ask you to forward the ALS input as it
> arrives?
>
> As much as we all appreciate the efforts of the
> Committee itself to provide analysis and commentary, I
> am sure that you would agree that it would be
> eminently preferable to hear from the 27 at-large
> groups that you have certified.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com