[NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2

[Evan Leibovitch]

Danny Younger wrote:
> As I look around I see four distinct communities that
> have a stake in the process:
>
> 1.   Community:  Providers of Registration and
> Connectivity Services
>      a.	Registries
>      b.	Registrars
>      c.	Resellers, Hosting Companies/ISPs
>
> 2.   Community:  Business
>      a.	Big Business & their Intellectual Property
> Attorneys
>      b.	Small Business & domainers
>  
> 3.   Community:  Law Enforcement & Security Interests
>
> 4.   Community:  Public Interest
>      a.	Consumer Groups
>      b.	Civil Society Advocates
>           i.	Privacy
>          ii.	Freedom of Speech, etc.
>      c.	Registrant Rights Advocates
>   
Well, I guess then my ALS has no right to be represented; we fall into
none of the above cubbyholes. Neither do most current ALSs.

I can't agree at all with the above split. The entire spectrum of
"public interest" -- representing the 99.99% of the world that uses the
Internet -- gets one-quarter of the total voice. (And I continue to be
reminded that NCUC, that shares part of that one-quarter, _defended_ the
AGP!)

To accept the above grouping is to accept Danny's assertion that the
current At-Large process -- that tries to give a voice to public
interests that would not otherwise be actively involved -- be totally
discarded. I believe he was dead wrong when he first stated that view,
and I'm not prepared to go along with it now because GNSO is being
reconstituted. I'm not yet ready to give up on ICANN At-Large.

Under the above arrangement, the general public is screwed. I can't
support it. "Civil society", especially as currently constituted within
ICANN, cannot be trusted to advance what I consider to be the public
interest. Given a choice, I prefer the current joint statement with the
ALAC sidebar.

- Evan