[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Post-Paris Review

[JFC Morfin]

At 03:49 17/07/2008, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>JFC Morfin wrote:
> > At 17:37 16/07/2008, Ross Rader wrote:
> >> Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >>  > The apparent staff obsession to fund constituencies that don't
> >> need the
> >>  > subsidy, at the expense of those who do, is what I consider
> >> worrisome.
> >>
> >> I don't see this as a staff push. My slightly uninvolved view is that
> >> this emanates mostly from the GNSO Council where constituency interests
> >> contend that their work is so important that they absolutely must have
> >> travel funding. Perhaps Alan could shed some better light on the issue,
> >> as I've not been directly involved in the Council for the better part of
> >> a year.
> >
> > May be a stupid question, but what has GNSO to do with ALAC?
> > 90% of the ALAC concerns are out of the GNSO scope.
>I think his point is that the constituencies that make up GNSO -- most
>of which already have financial motivations to be involved -- are
>whining that they want a piece of the travel pie. After all, if RALO
>chairs and secretariats qualify for funding, certainly the International
>Chamber of Commerce deserves funding too; it's only fair.

Yes.

However, the main story is that the SOs and ACs are here to advise 
the BoD in their own areas. Their budget should be in proportion to 
the BoD needs of information and interest,  and possible SOs and ACs 
overlaps. There is a strategy by some (clearly spelled at ISOC) to 
keep the ALAC as a GNSO underlap. This permits the "ICANN consensus" 
that the GNSO+ALAC portion of the apple pie makes one big portion and 
that GNSO contributes more than ALAC.

If this is not a clear signal that BoD do not care about @larges, and 
therfore about ALAC inputs, question is to know if the ALAC considers 
that 90% of its areas of interest undelaps the GNSO  or not. For 
thirty years I am directly involved in the name space, I consider 
that 90% of the GNSO concerns are either separate or detrimental 
interests to the @large.

The basic ICANN position is that Staff ASCII DNS management went well 
for 10 years and should be consolidated in order not to be captured 
by external interests. The france at large questions are:

- is the Legacy ASCII DNS management a good solution to retain in 
order to manage the emerging Multilingual and Semantic Internet?
- is the PDT's current Staff power control increase the same solution 
of the past years under Vint Cerf?
- what makes DPT so sure that ICANN is not already captured?
- in any case, is that not all this system already technically and 
politically obsoleted by the "market", aka "real world practices"?
- what really are the Internet @large community interests?
- does ICANN want to support these @large interests or not - in its 
area of responsibility? at the IGF?

If the BoD wants to hear the @large contribution it should:

- predifferentiate between ALAC and GNSO budgets, to acquire inputs 
on @large and ICANN DNS areas.
- stop preventing non-GNSO abiding ALSes to join
- clearly warn the ALAC and Staff that if they want to stay a pale 
duplicate of the GA they will close their shop.

... that is, again, if the whole purpose of ALAC is not to stick the 
Internet @larges in a mud bath?
jfc