Charter drafts - and the related process so far => NCUC/ALAC

[Joly MacFie]

As someone who is coming newly to the situation, I found Harold Feld's
recent comments illuminative.

http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/1606

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:

> My view has always been (since this "at large user" thing was conceived)
> that the so-called "At-Large User Constituency" is a Frankenstein. The
> real world moves and revolves around interest groups, not a linear, flat
> concoction called "the user" -- and of course different interest groups
> end up controlling ALAC's views and actions. It was a clever way to
> generate an illusion of participation, this is all. So no surprise that
> they move from one position to another quite easily -- in this sense,
> they are quite "at large"...
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> William Drake wrote:
> > I fired off a comment as well during last night's dreary council
> > meeting.  Awakening this morning to see the net effects, it's clear that
> > the responses submitted were overwhelmingly favorable to our position.
> > Not that this necessarily will mean anything to the SIC/staff.
> > Unfortunately, most comments dwelt more on the procedural aspect of
> > SIC/staff discarding our work without comment or dialogue rather than on
> > precisely why their alternative will not work.  We've made those points
> > before but they've never responded, so it might have been good if more
> > of us had reiterated them and demanded specific explanations.  The
> > official NCUC response
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00061.htmlgoes
> > some way in this direction, but whether this one intervention will yield
> > reasoned replies in the staff synthesis or beyond---I wouldn't put money
> > on it.  The board will make its decision soon and I suspect that they'll
> > stick with the SIC approach rather than doing a 180 turn just because
> > the little people who will have to live with their charter don't like it.
> >
> > One thing that I found particularly depressing in the comments was the
> > ALAC leadership's decision to endorse the SIC/staff version, and to
> > dismiss NCUC's model as some sort of capture strategy on the part of an
> > apparently evil cabal (that's us, I guess).  The former is despite the
> > fact that ALAC earlier disavowed the CP80 proposal, which the SIC/staff
> > version actually mirrors in important respects.  Go ahead and figure
> > that one out.  It is notable too that this is despite the fact that ALAC
> > leadership has not sought any sort of dialogue with NCUC to arrive at a
> > shared understanding of the alternative models, and despite the lack of
> > any real dialogue within ALAC on the relative merits of the two models
> > geared to eliciting a broadly supported verdict.  I have feet in both
> > worlds as an NCUC councilor and a member of Euralo's board, and I at
> > least did not see any effort from the top to seriously canvass ALAC
> > members opinions before arriving at a stance in our names.  All I have
> > seen on the ALAC lists and other lists like that of the Media Democracy
> > Coalition has been messages to the effect that civil society people
> > should work in the first instance through ALAC, not NCUC or NCSG.  And
> > yet the board has said it thinks at large structures should be active in
> > the future NCSG, and we get criticized for somehow failing to include
> > more ALS folks in our work, when of course from our side they're
> > perfectly welcome and just don't choose to engage.
> >
> > Maybe I'm still a bit green (although after almost a year here this
> > excuse is getting lame) but I simply fail to understand why people can't
> > see that ALAC and NCUC/NCSG have different and non-competing functions
> > and should be cross-pollinating and cooperating closely. Whatever stuff
> > went on in the past between whomever just doesn't cut it as an excuse
> > for continuing dysfunctionality today.  Indeed, when we have tried to
> > collaborate of late, as with the IRT, it has been clear that there's
> > often quite a bit of overlap/harmony of view on substantive matters.  So
> > it's hard not to conclude that this is all about turf, personal empires,
> > and interpersonal relations, which is just adolescent and nuts.
> >
> > In any event, once the board has given us the charter and we've decided
> > how to respond, undertaking a serious NCUC/ALAC dialogue should be high
> > on the list of priorities, in my view.  It just doesn't work to have one
> > group actively undermining the other when both could be working toward
> > common objectives.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> > ***********************************************************
> > William J. Drake
> > Senior Associate
> > Centre for International Governance
> > Graduate Institute of International and
> >   Development Studies
> > Geneva, Switzerland
> > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> > ***********************************************************
> >
> >
>



--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090724/b5b10058/attachment.html>