Re: icannatlarge.org (was RE: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC re sponse to sTLD RFP)
Richard and all former DNSO GA members,
Agreed! Too bad Jefsey did not and does not practice what he
preaches as is evident with respect to ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
Pot - Kettle, Black.... Next?
Richard Henderson wrote:
> Jefsey's comments are first-class and well-balanced.
>
> A top-down structure, without democratic representation, and based on
> 'nominations' and 'appointments' is by no means as reliable as the group
> organising bottom-up at Icann At Large.
>
> Moreover there is a thousandfold more participation in the mailig list
> discussions at icannatlarge, compared to the virtually uninhabited mailing
> list at ALAC.
>
> There is also Jefsey's other point, that when you do speak up to ICANN on a
> relevant issue, you can expect to get ignored (as Jefsey was) so you have to
> question whether you're just supporting a facade run for ICANN's own
> benefit. On a number of issues and policies, the ICANN Board has simply
> ignored consensus positions. Moreover, it is infamously unresponsive when
> challenged on awkward issues (take, for example, Dan Halloran's abject
> failure to even acknowledge my serious, demonstrated concerns of registrar
> abuse on New TLDs... 500 days later, he still hasn't even had the courtesy
> to reply... so you have to ask, what was my effort for?)
>
> Similarly, when ICANN set up the ALSC to propose ways of developing the At
> Large, it did not like the outcome, so it the recommendations were ignored.
>
> Fortunately, the 'legacy' At Large is moving forward with its
> self-organisation and there are always busy mailing lists, discussing issues
> of governance. But this lively participation has absolutely *nothing* to do
> with ALAC's organisation.
>
> I agree with Jefsey, that the Icann At Large organisation is a highly
> significant At Large entity, capable of offering an alternative to ALAC,
> which should prove much more attractive to ordinary individual users.
>
> ALAC is ICANN's initiative.
>
> But it was ICANN who expelled the At Large from their Board Romm, wasn't it?
>
> Yrs,
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Steven Heath <Steven.Heath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxx>
>
> > Dear Steven,
> > everyone is "involved" in or by ALAC and icannatlarge.org. Our concern is
> > to be "involved" in the most efficient manner. The way I read the things
> is
> > that a small kernel of advisors wants to inform ICANN on what the atlarge
> > may think and therefore ask them to speak up. Only the most vocable will
> do
> > it - if they think it of use. For example I did on UDRP and was not even
> > acknowledged.
> >
> > Now, a substantial number of these @large are members of the
> > icannatlarge.org organization which prefers to organize a two level
> > questionning : collect matter for question (as does the ALAC) form the
> most
> > vocable (or Workiong Groups) and to ask everyone their opinion.
> >
> > One can only say that the ALAC method may include opinions from people who
> > are not members of icannatlarge.org and that these opinions are not
> > validated as the opinion of any @large group.
> >
> > This does not mean they or of no interest. But they do not match the
> pupose
> > of ALAC. On the other hand, should the more complex icannatlarge.org
> system
> > come to fruition, its positions will be the positions of a significant
> > @large group, but will probably not be accepted as such by ICANN.
> >
> > jfc
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801