[NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June

[Dominik Filipp]

Danny, Evan,

A very, very difficult topic to disentangle...

No doubt some of the Danny's observations are right. I have to admit
that as regards at least the way how the domain tasting issue and the
related working group with zero contributions posted altogether were
being conducted is alarming. Also just few posts strictly based on the
issue merit. The issue is particularly important for the wide community
and therefore it really deserved much more care taken about. The ALAC
statement should have not contain any sort of compromise. It is an
advisory committee and as such it is expected to provide independent,
objective, well-funded advices supported by number of expert analyses.
This is what is naturally expected from every well functioning advisory
body wherever else. This did not happen and it is a failure that has to
be clearly and explicitly spoken out as is. Without realizing this as
well as some sort of self-reflection At-Large cannot recover from the
mistakes and proceed further effectively.
If this happened, and it happened, I tend to believe that some other
issues might have been conducted in the same way. With lack of deeper
interest, professionalism or personal involvement.

Evan, I appreciate your optimism, creative enthusiasm as well as the
overall personal involvement. Indeed, a right man in the right place
with a clear vision. But from time to time you have to stop to
recapitulate what has been actually done. And to critically evaluate and
conclude conseqences if necessary. Otherwise the vision will not come
true.

Danny, whatever statement posted by the registrar's constituency at any
time regarding the budget sounds deceptively to me. Even if it sounds
right. We all know that the whole ICANN is significantly influenced by
the registry/registrars interests not striving for objective judgments
and needs.

And, please, stop fighting :-) You are both pretty smart guys, try to
understand each other.

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:07 PM
To: At-Large Staff; Evan Leibovitch; Dominik Filipp
Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; NA Discuss
Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June

Dominik,

Time for a reality check.  Take a moment and pop into the wasteland that
the ALAC calls Working Groups.  You will see almost no participation
whatsoever and almost no discussion on anything even remotely related to
policy concerns.  This is the norm here, not the exception.

So, do Civil Society folk have the ability to work on-line and get
things done?  I see plenty of evidence elsewhere that they can...

I recall the IGOVAP Forum discussions that involved 180 members from 27
countries that generated 350 messages within a matter of a few short
weeks.

I see the steady ongoing involvement of many CS orgs on the cpsr
governance list... and it's amazing how many of them (also ALS reps)
regularly participate there, but not here.  

Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves who should be financially supported
and why.  

I favor supporting those that make an effort to involve themselves in
on-line policy working groups, who do the investigative work, who come
up with findings that lead to recommendations.  I support the notion of
providing funding for their necessary intersessional face to face
meetings to resolve any outstanding policy debates.  

I don't support spending money on those who during most of the year have
nothing to say, who won't work in an on-line environment to get things
done, and who seem to think that ICANN owes them travel funding just so
that they can get together for a few days three times a year,
pontificate and come up with "Me Too" Statements.

For many years I have seen certain groups working hard, organizing
workshops with expert commentators, presenting position papers,
negotiating policy points with those who don't share their views -- and
all without any funding from ICANN. 

Then I look at those who are budgeted at three-quarters of a million
dollars or more and I'm appalled by the almost useless return on
investment.

For that kind of money anyone could hire a group akin to the Pew
Charitable Trust to conduct wide-reaching global surveys of user views
(if user views was all that we sought to obtain).  But we should be
expecting a lot more for that kind of financial outlay.  At the very
least we should be getting the type and quantity of documents produced
by the SSAC detailing user concerns, findings and recommendations. 

Other Advisory Committees manage to get their work done in a
straightforward and responsible fashion.  This AC does not.  The model
is flawed and we keep pouring good money after bad down a rathole.

In a statement posted by the registrar's constituency yesterday to the
Budget Forum the question is asked:  "How can you justify that the
support for certain groups is disproportional with their contributions?"

Apparently, I'm not the only one that holds such views.

regards,
Danny



--- On Fri, 6/13/08, Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk> wrote:

> From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk>
> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 
> June
> To: dannyyounger at yahoo.com, "At-Large Staff" 
> <staff at atlarge.icann.org>, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org>
> Cc: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart at icann.org>, "NA Discuss" 
> <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 11:26 AM
> Danny,
> 
> A bit sarky view ;-) The fact that the constituencies are doing a more

> visible work may be derived from its higher status and their 
> organizational integration and stability. At-Large is still in 
> progress and evolution having just advisory voice in result.
> Therefore I would
> not compare who deserves what. However, I have to agree with Evan in 
> that after the consolidation At-Large, by its organizational nature 
> and the overall public outreach it is intended to cover, will need 
> more money than other much smaller constituencies. The consolidation, 
> however, also means the promotion of At-Large to a body with voting 
> right.
> 
> Dominik
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny

> Younger
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:53 PM
> To: At-Large Staff; Evan Leibovitch
> Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; NA Discuss
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 
> June
> 
> Evan,
> 
> You are at liberty to make the case that the at-large deserves more 
> dollars than other constituent bodies.  I would argue that those who 
> do the work are to be rewarded, while those that accomplish almost 
> nothing should receive almost nothing.
> 
> 
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists
> .icann.org
> 
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------