[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy

Mon Apr 14 12:39:38 EDT 2008

If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they
could easily be reading the relevant news articles and
blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they
certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars to bring organizational
representatives into their midst on a periodic basis
just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot
less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the
necessary surveys and polls.

But opinion alone is not what ICANN is after.  

They want real solutions to real problems... that
means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to
engage in research, to declare their findings based
upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations
based upon the findings.

As this hasn't been happening and as there is no
likelihood that this will ever happen (just look at
all the empty Working Groups), the ALAC has no
continuing purpose.   

Organizations with no continuing purpose (like the
former Protocol Supporting Organization) that drain
ICANN's financial resources should most certainly be
discontinued.

Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement
could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does
happen, where findings are noted, and where policy
recommendations do emerge. 

It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed
experiment.  The PSO was discontinued after two years,
the GNSO General Assembly was discontinued as a
representative unit after four years -- you've had
more than ample time to prove the worth of the
ALAC/RALO model, and the model has failed to get the
job done.  

I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this
rathole.

--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson at GOV.NU.CA> wrote:

> Danny,
> 
> Actually, I would have to agree with your statement,
> "The truth of the
> matter is that most ALSs have only a passing
> interest on an occasional
> topic; they have no deep commitment to defend those
> that they
> purportedly represent."  This goes right to the
> heart of what Jacqueline
> was saying.  ALSs are not registrants.  ICANN wants
> public opinion on
> stuff that the public, over all, has only a passing
> interest in.
> 
> So, how do we get more public interest in this (and
> I DON'T mean
> registrant interest - I mean John Q Public)?  What
> are your suggestions
> on how to improve things, rather than just pointing
> out where everybody
> else is failing?
> 
> D
> 
> Darlene A. Thompson
> Community Access Program Administrator
> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP
> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
> Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
> Phone:  (867) 975-5631
> Fax:  (867) 975-5610
> E-mail:  dthompson at gov.nu.ca
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:30 AM
> To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan
> Leibovitch; Nick
> Ashton-Hart
> Cc: NA Discuss
> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft
> Accountability Framework
> andConflicts of Interest Policy
> 
> Darlene,
> 
> The Summit Questionnaire was just finalized and the
> 15
> areas of interest cited all relate to information
> that
> can readily be found through ICANN's homepage.
> 
> Sufficient information is out there already for
> those
> that care about DNS issues.  
> 
> The answer is not to be found in creating a DNS for
> Dummies series in which 2 brief pages cover each
> issue
> -- if that approach is taken then all you will wind
> up
> with is something as useless as the "Guide to the
> DNS
> for End Users" that was prepared by an ICANN
> consultant.
> 
> Show me one relevant area that an ALS cares about
> for
> which sufficient information is lacking.  
> 
> Information is out there for those that wish to seek
> it out.  You seek to explain ALS non-performance,
> non-involvement, and non-engagement on the basis of
> a
> lack of educational materials.  I don't buy the
> argument.  
> 
> The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only
> a
> passing interest on an occasional topic; they have
> no
> deep commitment to defend those that they
> purportedly
> represent.
> 
> Consider the IPC that aggressively acts to protect
> the
> interests of the intellectual property crowd.  By
> contrast, the bulk of the ALSs have no interest in
> protecting us -- and that is not something that a
> Reader's Digest condensed version of an issue will
> cure.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson at GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
> 
> > Well, OF COURSE the registrant community (in the
> US,
> > anyways) responded
> > to the RegisterFly debacle - it hurt their
> interests
> > personally.  If
> > something affects me personally, I read up on it
> and
> > respond, as well.
> > If it doesn't I might not.
> > 
> > ALSs are generally non-profit organizations run by
> > people putting in
> > hugely long numbers of hours dealing with their
> > work.  They don't sit
> > behind a desk and have huge amounts of time to go
> > finding stuff and
> > working on stuff that doesn't affect them (or
> their
> > jobs) directly.  You
> > must have tons more time at work to read this
> stuff
> > than the entire ALS
> > community put together.  We all have jobs that
> > actually take up huge
> > portions of our time/life.
> > 
> > When the Canadian ALSs signed up, we were told
> that
> > easier to digest
> > information would be soon coming out.  As Nick has
> > reported there have
> > been various impediments to this but that it
> should
> > "soon" be coming.
> > Once this is available, then I would suggest that
> > the NARALO do, maybe,
> > a weekly informational e-mailing on one subject to
> > all ALSs - both for
> > their info and for their web sites.
> > 
> > In stating, "The problem isn't that ALSs aren't
> > being properly educated;
> > the problem is that ALSs are not the at-large. 
> The
> > real At-Large cares,
> > reacts and responds; they don't."  That is really
> > wrong.  The At-Large
> > does care - about those issues that affect them. 
> > Comparing them to a
> > registrant that has just had the plug pulled on
> > their web site is
> > completely misleading.
> > 
> > So, what issues do ALSs care about?  WELL - that's
> > the information we
> > need to get out to them.  What is happening that
> > they should care about?
> > What response is needed?  Put out information such
> > as that, and we will
> > get more input.
> > 
> > Constant negativity sure won't help, though.
> > 
> > D
> > 
> > Darlene A. Thompson
> > Community Access Program Administrator
> > Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP
> > P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
> > Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
> > Phone:  (867) 975-5631
> > Fax:  (867) 975-5610
> > E-mail:  dthompson at gov.nu.ca
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Danny Younger
> [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] 
> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:32 AM
> > To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan
> > Leibovitch; Nick
> > Ashton-Hart
> > Cc: NA Discuss
> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft
> > Accountability Framework
> > andConflicts of Interest Policy
> > 
> > Re:  "How can we punish or even expect anything at
> > all
> > out of ALSs that haven't been educated?"
> > 
> > When these organizations signed up they agreed to 
> > (1) distribute information on ICANN activities and
> > issues, 
> > (2) enable discussions among their members on the
> > issues; and
> > (3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy
> > development, discussions and decisions.
> > 
> > The ICANN website currently contains information
> on:
> 
=== message truncated ===

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ