[At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
evan at telly.org
Thu Jan 23 05:42:02 UTC 2014
On 23 January 2014 00:13, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no such thing as plain English as it continues to evolve.
> However, when someone uses an expression that others may not be familiar
> with, we simply inquire. In fact when we live in a global diverse context,
> we are all the more richer when we learn about "others'" systems and
> cultures etc.
Well said. +1
My own analysis of the situation is that the ALAC was "set up to fail",
through creation of an objection process that appears outwardly to consider
the public interest, but finds ways within the culture and the minutiae to
maintain the status quo and keep us silenced. Having the Board empower the
ALAC to advance objections, while also enabling the adjudicator to dismiss
us based on lack of standing, can now be seen in hindsight to have been a
hopeless venture. It swallowed hundreds of person-hours into a good-faith
effort that was doomed to fail BY DESIGN.
This is not the first instance of such a occurrence. I would now also
categorize the gTLD Applicant Support program in the same manner.
To the extent that these processes deceived members of the At-Large
community to make massive personal investments into a path that utterly
failed us, I might agree that the term "cheated" (or at least "fooled") was
Now, hindsight is fine, but is useless if it does not offer us any lessons.
Going forward, I see the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) regime following
this same path of futility that we have seen before. After initially
supporting the concept of PICs, now that I see how they are to be
implemented I come to follow Carlton's sage references to their not being
worth a "warm bucket of spit" (Sorry, Alejandro), and will refrain from
further work on them as being an utter waste of time.
More information about the At-Large