[npoc-voice] Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Notes from NCSG-EC Teleconference on 8 November 2011

[William Drake]

Hi Evan,

Welcome to the list, glad to have a liaison from ALAC.  I have to say though that we may have different conceptions of what that role properly entails, so it might be useful to come to some shared understanding in this regard.  Having been NCUC's liaison to ALAC for the past couple years, I have limited my interventions on your list to such items as organizing joint sessions during ICANN meetings and encouraging joint work/statements when that seemed possible.  I never thought it was my place to interject negative comments about ALAC's internal discussions and processes, no matter what I think of them.  In particular, I never would have thought to offer snide and biased misrepresentations of one faction or perspective in order to support another I happen to personally prefer.  That strikes me as going rather far beyond the call of duty, but I'm willing to reconsider if need be.  I'm sure I could think up lots of ripe things to say.

However we're going to proceed, I'd think the approach taken by liaisons should not be wildly asymmetrical.  If it's really necessary, perhaps we should work out a TOR?  This being ICANN, if you want we can even start from a presumption that sandbox antagonism must be the default state of affairs and formalize some bureaucratic constraints on it in collaboration with our respective chairs, the omsbuddy, the board, NTIA, or whomever else?

Best,

Bill

On Nov 14, 2011, at 6:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> I'm new to the list and am finding this discussion rather ... fascinating ... both in regard to the content and the pro-active effort to stifle dissent.
> 
> Denying membership to an organization based on its "perspectives" -- as opposed to its mission and how it spends its money -- seems like trying to pre-determine policy outcomes. If it so happens that some NPOC members think that name protection is an issue, well, then it's an issue. I can think of many reasons why groups like the Salvation Army, or PBS, or Oxfam, would want to protect their names from being the victim of fraud or gaming. Such "perspectives" do not render them suitable as business constituents. Nor does the size of their budgets or their models of fundraising.
> 
> There's nothing inherently evil about NPOC or NPOC members -- or perspective NPOC members -- agreeing with the BC on specific issues; surely they will differ on others. Slanting debate by keeping out orgs who have their "perspectives" pre-judged seems anti-democratic and (thus) opaque.
> 
> I mean, if we're going to disqualify participants based on their success at raising lost of money from "network television licensing deals" and "corporate advertising on their website" would you allow this organization to participate in NCSG? Or are they also more appropriately a business entity?
> 
> I, for one, am not annoyed, Alain.
> 
> Evan Leibovitch
> ALAC Vice Chair and NCSG Liaison
> Toronto Canada
> evan at telly.org
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111115/a72f3577/attachment-0001.html>