RE: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Well said. I would add to that, it is inconceivable that an empowered At
Large organization would want to harm the provider side of industry, since
it's obvious the user *enjoys* the services they receive (in the main), and
wants to see it thrive, yet there seems to be a fundamental mistrust on the
provider side, that strives to eliminate meaningful AL participation in any
form of internet governance.

While the user looks to providers for new and innovative ways to improve the
quality of their internet experience, the providers respond by imposing
limits on the user's rights to participate in that process. For an
interested user, this has been an extremely frustrating and unsatisfactory
process over several years. No wonder there are so few people interested in
joining yet another puppet show performance over at the ALAC.

Yet this very same ALAC could have been an improvement if not for the fact
it has been turned upside down. Instead of bringing pressure to bear on the
Board to enforce the Agreements that ICANN enters into purportedly on the
users behalf (which would actually be useful), the ALAC is there to help
providers enforce limitations from the top down onto Internet User
participation in the regulatory and governance process, keeping it at a
level consistent with ICANN Staff thinking, which means nowhere near the
level where meaningful influence over policy decisions can actually be
gained.  This has not stopped the ALAC toings and froings, but equally it
has not convinced anyone that it is actually doing what it is says it is
doing, and so it seems as if the penny has finally dropped.

Most individual participants that have followed the AL movement on it's
downhill journey over the years, would have to be completely blind not to
have noticed the ALAC has reached a new low from the user perspective, hence
the smart money has gone elsewhere and finally, loyal ICANN users have
started to seek out external solutions that route around the ICANN problem.
The inclusive roots and ccTLDs have renewed appeal for many. So, let's be
honest about this. ICANN should trash the At Large concept completely and
carry on as the trade body it always should have been. You'll do just fine.
We'll do just fine. ICANN is just old, so it's time for a smarter, cheaper,
faster partner, or maybe no partner at all. To borrow from Vint Cerf, "Let's
take it outside".

Regards,
Joanna




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Richard
> Henderson
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:43 AM
> To: Karl Auerbach; DannyYounger@cs.com
> Cc: ga@dnso.org; vb@bertola.eu.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?
>
>
> It's simple.
>
> ALAC doesn't speak for Internet Users.
>
> It speaks for the ICANN agenda.
>
> ALAC is an instrument of the ICANN Board, developed to constrain, contain,
> and marginalise the At Large movement, which would insist on democratic
> accountability being brought to bear on the ICANN Board.
>
> ALAC has been developed "top down" and it lacks the mandate of ordinary
> internet users.
>
> Therefore, it is truer to say that ALAC is representative of the ICANN
> Board. It does not represent Internet Users. No-one has asked for
> it. No-one
> has voted for it.
>
> It is perfectly obvious that the defence of User interests, and the
> development of an adequate 'Watchdog' role on ICANN's
> machinations, requires
> a worldwide structure which is *independent* of ICANN and organised
> externally.
>
> At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing. ICANN has
> appointed its 'representatives'. ICANN (via Denise Michel) writes its
> responses.
>
> ALAC is a sham.
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
> To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; <vb@bertola.eu.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?
>
>
> > On Wed, 28 May 2003 DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >
> > > Having read the "ALAC responses to comments received on the proposed
> > > criteria, process and guidelines", I have only question:  Was ICANN
> Staff member
> > > Denise Michel the author of all of these responses?
> > >
> > > http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/responses-21may03.htm
> >
> > I agree that the answers are more than wimpy.
> >
> > For example, the answer to L. Gallegos, in my reading, amounts to a
> > statement that the ALAC, in its paternalistic way, knows best how people
> > should talk to one another and that it's either the ALAC way or the
> > highway.
> >
> > And when I suggested that the ALAC impose no requirement on at-large
> > members unless equivalent requirements are imposed on members
> of the SO's,
> > the ALAC said (paraphrase) "We can't control the SOs".  That's not an
> > answer, it is an excuse.  The ALAC could have said "We will
> advocate that
> > position to the Board" and in the meantime "we will not impose any
> > requirement that is not imposed on SO's".
> >
> > The old IDNO and other nascent assemblies in ICANN were
> dismissed as being
> > non-representative because they could not demonstrate thousands and
> > thousands of active, unified members.  I'd suggest that the
> ALAC's failure
> > to garner more than a trivial number of comments (even after
> extending the
> > period for such comments) is indicative that if those other assemblies
> > were in fact disconnected from "the public" that the ALAC is
> even further
> > disconnected and isolated.
> >
> > The ALAC lacks the gumption to do what is right; rather it
> seems intent on
> > doing what is convenient.
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html