[At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
apisan at unam.mx
Thu Jan 23 07:51:20 UTC 2014
so let's itemize this:
1. if the ALAC is going to have the opinion that the panelist cheated floating around it better prepare for a visit to the Ombudsman. If the accusation is going to stand it has to be carried through seriously; if not, it is libel and the panelist is entitled to go to the Ombudsman to clear his name.
2. if the conclusion about the PICs is that they are worthless and it is now proved ex-post-facto, start drafting, and consulting the RALOs, for a prompt and clear communication. If they can be fixed proposed a fix, if they can't and we all agree, let's put it in writing again. All this should help prepare better cases than the one lost by numerous avoidable reasons, and a better environment for them. Let's serve the at-large users.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desde: evanleibovitch at gmail.com [evanleibovitch at gmail.com] en nombre de Evan Leibovitch [evan at telly.org]
Enviado el: miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 23:42
Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
CC: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide
Asunto: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
On 23 January 2014 00:13, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto: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 indeed appropriate.
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