[NA-Discuss] [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration

[Beau Brendler]

Olivier...

Thanks for your wise statements.

Indeed we have been "winging it" process-wise, and the problem is not unique to the RALOs and ALAC. Maybe we can create a case study or something that traces an idea for action from inception at the ALS level all the way up to what the ALAC may or may not do with such an idea for action.

I figured since the NA RALO had effectively signed off on the draft in the manner I described, and passed it on to the other RALOs with positive feedback from LAC and acknowledgement from EUR (I can't believe I am typing in these gibberish acronyms), then at the bare minimum it would be in the purview of the NA leadership in ALAC to champion the idea -- whether they totally agreed with it or not. I don't look upon statements like this as meaningless, I see them as the beginnings of articulation of policy generated by the grass-roots.

Also, you wrote:

"In such bottom-up processes, I am well aware of the risk of promoting the views of a vocal minority at the expense of a silent majority - and therefore if there is any doubt that a process has matured, I'd rather kick it back to its originator to work out a plan of action together."

Indeed, I agree with you most certainly. But on the converse, there's only so many times you can kick around a draft statement, and for only so long, before people at the grassroots from where it originated start to complain that the fish is rotting. One such complaint already came my way, directed at me, for my "lack of action" on the statement in Singapore.

Beau

-----Original Message-----
>From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>Sent: Aug 23, 2011 9:26 PM
>To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
>Cc: "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson1 at gov.nu.ca>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>, na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration
>
>
>
>On 24/08/2011 01:22, Beau Brendler wrote :
>> Really? Does the NA-RALO need to have a discussion with its >elected< representatives to ALAC about what bottom-up consensus means, and about the importance of listening to your constituency?
>>
>> Thanks for making me aware of this.
>
>I do not think at all that the response from NARALO's elected
>representatives is a case of not listening to their constituency. It is
>a case of NARALO reaching consensus, declaring it, bringing consensus to
>the other RALOs and having the ALAC reach consensus on this. Noting that
>I have not seen this process mature yet, I suggested that the matter
>continue on email.
>
>Clearly Beau, the ALAC will need to discuss processes by which such
>bottom-up action could be formalised and promoted so as to avoid the
>current tendency to let subjects hang unresolved. In my opinion, RALOs
>also need to work on formalising such processes. If we wish to be
>proactive at promoting the view of the Internet users, this will need to
>be discussed with all present in Dakar, with regional leadership as well
>as ALAC members present around the table.
>
>In such bottom-up processes, I am well aware of the risk of promoting
>the views of a vocal minority at the expense of a silent majority - and
>therefore if there is any doubt that a process has matured, I'd rather
>kick it back to its originator to work out a plan of action together.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Olivier
>
>-- 
>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>