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

[Milton L Mueller]

Hello, 
I just filed a comment critical of Alan and Cheryl's statement. You can still comment if you wish. The system is still up

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:26 PM
> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Charter drafts - and the related process so
> far => NCUC/ALAC
> 
> 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