[ALAC] [LAC-ALS] [NA-ALS] Major Milestone Coming Up

[Andres Piazza]

Danny and Robert, I understand your ideas, and I really agree that 
quantity doesn´t guarantee quality.

I also agree with Danny that the process has been a failure since 2002 
and for a few years. But I´d had the opportunity to watch the new 
process in LAC, gathering a really important and quite representative 
number of organizations in the subject, and being related to indivual 
user´s interest, which is one of ALAC proposals, and wasnt happennig 
until now. Since then, at least in our region, it is growing a different 
way. Perhaps, the failure is not in the "What", but in the "How". The 
recomendations you are making reference allow me to think like this, and 
I  It is early to critizise the RALO´s process, because only one RALO 
(LAC) has been properly consolidated two months ago, and the others are 
in the way. I think you would be surprised in a few months.

Despite being a member of a non profit organization, and a researcher, I 
also work in the bussinnes world and I know the importance of 
efficiency, but I think we have to make some difference. When we are 
taking executive desitions, the procedures are not the same that if your 
goal has is to create consensus. Precisely, this process only would be 
able to grow with results if it is based in the idea of a powerfull and 
representative organization.

Moreover, ICANN has being spending time and money since a long time, and 
now that we are close to get a result, I would be pointless to abandon 
the efforts.

It´s been a pleasure to discuss ideas respectfully,

Regards,

Andrés
> Dear Andres,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> The ALAC was officially created in December 2002.  We
> have been pursuing this experiment for four long years
> during which time the DNS policy-related contributions
> offered by the ALS organizations has been almost nil. 
> By any set of metrics, that is an undeniable failure.
>
> Within ICANN we have the ability to recognize and deal
> with failed efforts -- as an example, we have seen the
> earlier DNSO (widely regarded as dsyfunctional in the
> extreme) replaced by the GNSO.
>
> I view the ALAC/RALO/ALS construct as a monumental
> failure that cannot be saved by the expenditure of
> additional funding or time.  
>
> Clearly, you don't share my point of view on this
> matter.  
>
> Let me ask you this: if you were a businessman that
> had to make a business decision based on the
> performance record to date, would you invest in this
> proposition in view of the return generated thus far?
> Probably not.  
>
> Most likely you would seek to restructure/reorganize
> or find a more suitable model.  ICANN has already
> spent a great deal of time and money seeking a
> reasonable solution.  They commissioned the At-Large
> Study to provide the Board with recommendations that
> could enjoy consensus support.  This is what they
> recommended:
>
>  "The ALSC recommends the creation of an At-Large
> Supporting Organization (ALSO) as vital to At-Large
> participation in ICANN. The existing ICANN structure
> has not fulfilled expectations of directly involving
> and representing individual Internet users and their
> interests.")
>
> I don't want a powerless ALAC model that offers no
> hope of representation on the ICANN Board.  I want our
> community to have the benefit of a Supporting
> Organization model that seats its members on the ICANN
> Board... I can't imagine that you would prefer to
> remain powerless and unrepresented?
>
> regards,
> Danny
>
>
> --- Andres Piazza <investigaciones at densi.com.ar>
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Dear Danny,
>>
>> First of all, I`d like to say that we share your
>> concern about making 
>> real and effective contributions to Icann and
>> specially to the areas 
>> that, as you said, require improvements. Despite
>> this, I respectfully 
>> disagree with your opinions. The ALS process has a
>> huge importance in 
>> the Internet Policy Development (and should be like
>> this in every other 
>> political aspect). Moreover, the idea of Botton Up
>> Consensus-Based 
>> Process is one of the strongers in ICANN, and also
>> one of the main goals 
>> of ALAC: To provide the broad advice, and be related
>> to the individual 
>> user´s interests.
>>
>> The job of being instruments for the individuals
>> users, to provide their 
>> empowerment, to lend they know, to poll them to get
>> involved and 
>> commited first, and to do their contributions later
>> on, is quite tough. 
>> I agree that, at this time, ALS didn´t offer the
>> gratest recomendations, 
>> but it is a long path to travel and (at least in the
>> LACRALO), I can see 
>> a great commitment in the ALS´s members, and also a
>> remarkable job in 
>> the some areas. It s too early to disdain the
>> potencial of the 
>> individual users to contribute, and it is also very
>> easy for you. ICANN, 
>> and specially ALAC, believes strongly in the
>> construction of consensus, 
>> and in the participative leadership (it is quite
>> different that being a 
>> cheerleader!!). I think you should start doing it
>> too.
>>
>> Please, dont get me wrong, I´m aware that you are
>> making a great job on 
>> your own, but I am convinced that your organization
>> (your are the only 
>> member in it) would be stronger and make better
>> contributions to ICANN 
>> if you nourish it with other participants. I have no
>> intentions to start 
>> a polemic, but I was forced to interfere because all
>> At Large Community 
>> is reading this mailing list, and I couldn´t lend
>> someone to believe 
>> that ALS are not capable to contribute.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Andres Piazza
>>     
>>> 		
>>>
>>> ** 
>>>  Andres Piazza**
>>>  Research Director
>>> * AGEIA DENSI**.***
>>> ** ********investigaciones at densi.com.ar 
>>> <mailto:andresp at ip6technology.com.ar>**
>>>
>>>       
>>     
>
>
>
>  
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never Miss an Email
> Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile.  Get started!
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070207/6b378443/attachment.html