<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
I'm still waiting to ride in the Mystery Van!<div><br></div><div>:-)</div><div><br><div><div>On Jul 24, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">As someone who is coming newly to the situation, I found Harold Feld's<br>recent comments illuminative.<br><br><a href="http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/1606" target="_blank">http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/1606</a><br> <br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Carlos Afonso <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ca@rits.org.br">ca@rits.org.br</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> My view has always been (since this "at large user" thing was conceived)<br> that the so-called "At-Large User Constituency" is a Frankenstein. The<br> real world moves and revolves around interest groups, not a linear, flat<br> concoction called "the user" -- and of course different interest groups<br> end up controlling ALAC's views and actions. It was a clever way to<br> generate an illusion of participation, this is all. So no surprise that<br> they move from one position to another quite easily -- in this sense,<br> they are quite "at large"...<br> <br> frt rgds<br> <font color="#888888"><br> --c.a.<br> </font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br> William Drake wrote:<br> > I fired off a comment as well during last night's dreary council<br> > meeting. Awakening this morning to see the net effects, it's clear that<br> > the responses submitted were overwhelmingly favorable to our position.<br> > Not that this necessarily will mean anything to the SIC/staff.<br> > Unfortunately, most comments dwelt more on the procedural aspect of<br> > SIC/staff discarding our work without comment or dialogue rather than on<br> > precisely why their alternative will not work. We've made those points<br> > before but they've never responded, so it might have been good if more<br> > of us had reiterated them and demanded specific explanations. The<br> > official NCUC response<br> > <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00061.html" target="_blank">http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00061.html</a> goes<br> > some way in this direction, but whether this one intervention will yield<br> > reasoned replies in the staff synthesis or beyond---I wouldn't put money<br> > on it. The board will make its decision soon and I suspect that they'll<br> > stick with the SIC approach rather than doing a 180 turn just because<br> > the little people who will have to live with their charter don't like it.<br> ><br> > One thing that I found particularly depressing in the comments was the<br> > ALAC leadership's decision to endorse the SIC/staff version, and to<br> > dismiss NCUC's model as some sort of capture strategy on the part of an<br> > apparently evil cabal (that's us, I guess). The former is despite the<br> > fact that ALAC earlier disavowed the CP80 proposal, which the SIC/staff<br> > version actually mirrors in important respects. Go ahead and figure<br> > that one out. It is notable too that this is despite the fact that ALAC<br> > leadership has not sought any sort of dialogue with NCUC to arrive at a<br> > shared understanding of the alternative models, and despite the lack of<br> > any real dialogue within ALAC on the relative merits of the two models<br> > geared to eliciting a broadly supported verdict. I have feet in both<br> > worlds as an NCUC councilor and a member of Euralo's board, and I at<br> > least did not see any effort from the top to seriously canvass ALAC<br> > members opinions before arriving at a stance in our names. All I have<br> > seen on the ALAC lists and other lists like that of the Media Democracy<br> > Coalition has been messages to the effect that civil society people<br> > should work in the first instance through ALAC, not NCUC or NCSG. And<br> > yet the board has said it thinks at large structures should be active in<br> > the future NCSG, and we get criticized for somehow failing to include<br> > more ALS folks in our work, when of course from our side they're<br> > perfectly welcome and just don't choose to engage.<br> ><br> > Maybe I'm still a bit green (although after almost a year here this<br> > excuse is getting lame) but I simply fail to understand why people can't<br> > see that ALAC and NCUC/NCSG have different and non-competing functions<br> > and should be cross-pollinating and cooperating closely. Whatever stuff<br> > went on in the past between whomever just doesn't cut it as an excuse<br> > for continuing dysfunctionality today. Indeed, when we have tried to<br> > collaborate of late, as with the IRT, it has been clear that there's<br> > often quite a bit of overlap/harmony of view on substantive matters. So<br> > it's hard not to conclude that this is all about turf, personal empires,<br> > and interpersonal relations, which is just adolescent and nuts.<br> ><br> > In any event, once the board has given us the charter and we've decided<br> > how to respond, undertaking a serious NCUC/ALAC dialogue should be high<br> > on the list of priorities, in my view. It just doesn't work to have one<br> > group actively undermining the other when both could be working toward<br> > common objectives.<br> ><br> > Best,<br> ><br> > Bill<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > ***********************************************************<br> > William J. Drake<br> > Senior Associate<br> > Centre for International Governance<br> > Graduate Institute of International and<br> > Development Studies<br> > Geneva, Switzerland<br> > <a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a><br> > <a href="http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html" target="_blank">www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html</a><br> > ***********************************************************<br> ><br> ><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 <a href="Skype:punkcast">Skype:punkcast</a><br>WWWhatsup NYC - <a href="http://wwwhatsup.com">http://wwwhatsup.com</a><br> <a href="http://pinstand.com">http://pinstand.com</a> - <a href="http://punkcast.com">http://punkcast.com</a><br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br></blockquote></div><br><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>IP JUSTICE</div><div>Robin Gross, Executive Director</div><div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</div><div>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</div><div>w: <a href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</a> e: <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></div></body></html>