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

[William Drake]

hi Je,

On Jul 24, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>> 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).
>
> Hi Bill, are you refering to Cheryl's statement?
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00067.html
>
> I've been told that it is not an ALAC statement since ALAC didn't
> discuss this matter. What is more, it is not, as Cheryl claims, a
> synopsis of former statements as it clearly contradicts other
> positions of ALAC. Since I am not an EURALO member anymore, I cannot
> point this out to the membership but I've asked two other members to
> do something about Cheryl's statement.

That's interesting.  I've inquired on the Euralo list, let's see if
there's any clues forthcoming.

>
> From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> Date: July 24, 2009 7:23:07 PM GMT+02:00
> To: Euralo Members List <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: Comment on Stakeholder Charters by Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> ALAC Chair 2007-2009
>
> Hi,
>
> As a member of both the NCUC and Euralo/ALAC environments, I must
> say I was a little puzzled by this statement in the public comment
> period on the NCSG charter.  http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00067.html
>
> The statement begins by noting that "This is not a formal or
> ratified statement or comment per se but rather a synopsis of those
> previously provided in various fora to date" (lots of writing like
> that, a bit hard to read, but whatever...).  I don't recall the
> previous discussions on Euralo or other ALAC-related lists that are
> being synopsized in which people endorsed a narrowly constituency-
> based model for the NCSG, which will result in fragmentation,
> politicization, and ineffectiveness.  To the contrary, my
> recollection, which is refreshed by Cheryl's comment, is that ALAC
> people actually rejected the CP80 proposal, which embodied such a
> model.  And yet the new SIC/staff version embodies pretty much the
> same model, and now it is apparently ok and to be supported!
>
> I'm sure the SIC/staff will be pleased to have at least one reliable
> expression of support for the dysfunctional model that has been
> rejected by hundreds of individuals and organizations over two
> public comment periods.  http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters
>  and http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters.  And of
> course, everyone's entitled to their own opinion and bits of self-
> aggrandizing historical revisionism.  What I'm unable to figure out
> is whether that opinion is widely shared among the people whose
> views purportedly are being synopsized, and when and where this
> support was expressed.  Did I just miss the memo?  Can anyone explain?
>
> Would be really interested to hear from Adam, Patrick, Sebastian and
> others who are more well attuned to the internal dynamics of ALAC
> discourse and decision making....
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill