[NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery

Avri Doria avri at ella.com
Tue Jun 19 21:01:16 UTC 2012


As a member of both groups, i think we have to find a way to stop thinking the worst of each other.

As it is, it is making my DID, aka MPD or DSM IV  300.14, flair.

Or in the words of late Rodney King .....


Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net> wrote:

>Certainly. Set an agenda that leaves handwringing, etc. off the list,
>and then set a specific agenda and demonstrate leadership to stick to
>that agenda. But fear of hand-wringing, in and of itself, is not an
>excuse not to try.
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1 at GOV.NU.CA>
>>Sent: Jun 19, 2012 2:54 PM
>>To: 'Evan Leibovitch' <evan at telly.org>, Beau Brendler
><beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
>>Cc: "na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
><na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery
>>I agree with Evan and I would certainly support a meeting with NCUC to
>discuss this matter if there is any kind of action that can be taken. 
>Like Evan, I find hand-wringing and complaining to be a waste of my
>valuable time.  If it is a strategy meeting with actions to move
>forward, then I'm all for it.
>>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: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>[mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:23 PM
>>To: Beau Brendler
>>Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NCUC meeting/Toronto/digital archery
>>I warmly extend greetings from the ALAC liaison to the NCSG (ie, me).
>>There is a formal ALAC/NCSG meeting on Monday.
>>One, the NCUC is considering the fairness of digital archery as an
>>> From what I heard on yesterday's NARALO call, we don't consider it a
>>> public-interest issue (which, as you know, I disagree with, in other
>>> words, I agree with the NCUC.
>>There is a difference between agreement in sentiment and agreement in
>>I don't know of ANYONE who disagrees with the sentiment "digital
>archery is dumb, and in practical use no better than a lottery than
>choosing order of processing". The issue is what to do about it.
>>The Board has already indicated that it is continuing with DA but may
>in fact (and in response to community reaction) toss the results and
>try something different. In fact, I've already suggested two
>alternative methods, though one of them may attract gaming
>>What wasn't resolved in NARALO, though was:
>>- how the prioritization of various applications -- let alone its
>method -- was a matter of public interest
>>- what At-Large should be doing and is able to do (beyond call
>attention to the reputation botch)
>>Having a dicussion with the NCUC so we can agree about how awfully
>ICANN botched DA may relieve stress, but doesn't in itself offer any
>constructive recommendations going forward. We can stress the need to
>look at the only two existing categories of applicants -- IDNs and
>community -- as deserving of priority in any new batching system. But
>unless we have something new or novel to add, we'd just be adding to
>the existing cacophony of protest.
>>Now... do you have a plan to come out of such discussion with a
>specific action item? If so I'm certainly open to change my mind. There
>is some flexibility in the NCSG/ALAC agenda, but I myself an averse to
>simple joint complaint sessions without an end game.
>>Two, the NCUC is planning for Toronto.
>>There is certainly an opportunity for joint outreach here.
>>And: Can we get with them on Toronto and possibly plan something
>>> We did do some joint event planning in San Francisco, which resulted
>>> in the well-attended Internet Town Hall.
>>While attendance was good, I don't consider the Town Hall to have been
>very effective in actually creating any go-forward policy strategy
>useful for ICANN. Lost of aired grievances and collective hand
>wringing, zero action items resulting. There was debating on which
>speakers had more credibility than others when discussing Internet
>access blocking in Africa. And most of it was about issues far outside
>ICANN's realm. So if the target is doing another meeting like what
>happened in SF, I'm personally not interested and would not attend.
>We're not IGF.
>>> Just a thought -- strength in numbers.
>>Collecting the numbers, and then not doing anything with the result,
>provided a sense of frustration and wasted opportunity that I'd say in
>hindsight to have been worse than never having been teased at all.
>>- Evan
>>NA-Discuss mailing list
>>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list