[NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review

[Dominik Filipp]

Evan,

I am not suggesting anything about At-Large itself let alone the
importance of the summit.

The only thing I am sugesting is a view how the summit organizers who
could 'endager' the summit are looking at At-Large. That is what I have
understood from the remark.

To clarify my point further I am appending another remark from the post

"the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff and
board to rethink support for the summit at this time"

I am optimistic :-)

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan at telly.org] 
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:48 AM
To: Dominik Filipp
Cc: Robert Guerra; NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review

Dominik Filipp wrote:
>> that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could 
>> endanger the summit being ok'd
>>     
>
> Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be
punished?
> If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted.
>   
I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that most of the people here are
acting this way. Some of the stronger supporters of strong NARALO
naction on this issue have also been key organizers of the Summit.

IMO the Summit is a *necessary* activity of ICANN if it is to prove to
outsiders (and especially the US government)  that it at least is
minimally serious about multi stakeholder involvement. If they can the
Summit because of improper comments by some individuals, well than that
doubly proves that ICANN does not really care about having an educated
and active At-Large. I prefer to stay optimistic until proven otherwise.

- Evan