[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Got an Aspirin?

[RJGlass | America@Large]

I fully agree.  Let's make progress but use lessong learned from the past.

Randy Glass
A at L

On 4/11/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
>
> > The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that
> have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with
> anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders.  It's
> not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited
> they want to help out in any way that they can.
> >
> As one of the newcomers, I can say one thing for certain; it's all so
> very headache-inducing.
>
> On one hand: I'm tired of repeated commentaries on the evil ICANN staff
> conspiracy to disenfranchise everyone outside of three people named
> George.
>
> On the other hand: ICANN itself, through a combination of action and
> inaction, has given plenty of credibilty to the accusations. And the end
> result is a lot of zero.
>
> IMO this isn't about being good spirited, it's about being patient in
> the hope that sooner or later there'll actually be a policy to be
> debated. The vast majority of the discussion on these lists so far has
> been about meetings to determine _structure_. Even these meetings don't
> appear to have on their plate anything actually policy-related.
>
> When Jacob 'recruited'  our group last year, attendees at the meeting
> were asked about issues that were important. Things such as domain
> kiting and the triple-x TLD were at the top of the list. And yet...
> while the rejection of XXX has been all over the news, the issue never
> came up on these lists. I'd told my group's constitutents last year that
> we were part of the advisory process, yet I can't even say that we were
> informed of the decision before the media was, on an issue of widespread
> public interest.
>
> MEANWHILE... we haven't made the EXISTING structure work -- yet people
> are talking about creating additional, non-geographic RALOs? Does anyone
> else here understand how absolutely insane this appears to those without
> the historical baggage?
>
> > Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status
> within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control
> over a
> > budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which
> their input has been ignored over and over again.
> >
> If that's the case, what the heck are you doing here? What am I doing
> here? Don't we have better things to do than bang heads into brick
> walls? If I want to be told what I don't have, I only need to ask my wife.
>
> I have two pleas to the folks involved in this  process:
>
> ICANN staff: Live up to the promises Jacob made to us last year, that we
> would be genuinely engaged and consulted on ICANN issues. Frankly I
> couldn't care less about the structure -- geographic, linguistic, or
> based on tarot cards -- but come up with something that prioritizes
> efficient knowledge transfer. The best way to address the complaints is
> with utter clarity and openness; let people know exactly what this
> process offers and what it doesn't. All the structure, recognition, and
> airline pretzels are pointless if the POV of ALSs is not meaningfully
> expressed -- and addressed -- on ALL relevant issues. If this isn't
> possible or desired then please stop wasting my time. And don't assume
> silence means consent, sometimes it just means the situation is too
> confused for an informed response.
>
> Angry old-timers: If you're indeed correct about ICANN being opaque and
> impervious to comment, stop encouraging that behaviour by spending so
> much time on complaining and wheel-spinning -- because in the meantime
> real policy discussion CAN'T take place, and the targets of your ire
> aren't listening. Clarity in the objections is also sorely lacking --
> concentrate on the gaps between what exists and what was formally
> committed. Help us know factually what ICANN won't tell us directly
> while working within the procss that exists, and let us make our own
> minds up rather than being indignant on our behalf. If the current
> process is pointless, let's change it with concrete alternatives whose
> development doesn't get mixed in with ICANN policy debate. Otherwise,
> our mandate is better served by getting out and going public.
>
> Obviously there are many with deep investments -- of time, effort and
> emotions -- in this process. I certainly don't mean to insult anyone
> individually, but I make no apologies for my exhaustion from a mix of
> bureaucratic bafflegab and petty scoldings.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> ---
> Draft MoU with ICANN:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
>
> Draft Operating Principles:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
>



-- 
-------------------------
AmericaAtLarge.org
RJPacific.com
DDMF.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070415/f4dee425/attachment.html