Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

[elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com>]

.....and all that just to keep the INEG Group from qualifying.

On Monday, April 21, 2003, at 08:24 PM, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> This moronic plan surely must have been conceived by the feeble-minded 
> idiots
> and stooges that participated as members of the At-Large Assistance 
> Group --
> it has all the hallmarks of a document hand-written by ICANN staff and
> rubber-stamped by the ICANN Board's hand-picked puppets (who 
> apparently are
> too ignorant or too naive to understand that they are only being used 
> as a
> conveniently pliable tool to promote the fiction that ICANN is in 
> compliance
> with task number nine under the Memorandum of Understanding with the 
> U.S.
> Department of Commerce).
>
> Having witnessed the complete and total elimination of all public
> representation on the ICANN Board these fools on the At-Large Advisory
> Committee now expect the Internet community to rally around a top-down 
> effort
> designed to asininely further complicate communication between 
> individual
> users and members of the ICANN Board.
>
> In the past, any individual user could write a letter to ICANN and feel
> confident that they would be ignored (as it has become rather apparent 
> that
> ICANN only bothers to pay attention to those special-interest groups 
> it deems
> to be "stakeholders" in its Cartel).  Now one has to do all of the 
> following
> in order to achieve the same outcome:
>
> 1.  First one must find a noncommercial entity to join.
> 2.  Next, one needs to convince the members of this non-profit group 
> that
> they must post on their website information that pertains to ICANN
> activities/issues, and further convince them to offer Internet-based
> discussion mechanisms so that such activities/issues may be evaluated.
> 3.  Then it next becomes necessary to convince this noncommercial 
> group that
> they must provide information on the group's general funding sources 
> to the
> ALAC (so that this Committee of pseudo-accountants/analysts can 
> ostensibly
> come to a determination as to whether the non-profit has commitments or
> obligations that would conflict with its ability to involve and 
> represent
> individual constituents' interests).
> 4.  At this point, one must now confirm that somewhere on the 
> non-profit
> group's website is an articulation of its non-commercial goals and 
> structure,
> a description of constituent group(s), its working mechanisms, 
> leadership,
> and contact(s) -- unlike the ALAC which has no posted working 
> mechanisms, an
> incomplete structure, no contact data on its discussion list (the 
> e-mail
> addresses of all the "representatives" are replaced with XXXXX), no 
> working
> public forum and no publicly archived public comments.
> 5.  Then, the non-profit must be convinced to submit in electronic 
> form a
> completed application and to provide the ALAC any further requested
> documentation (which may include references, documents to verify 
> general
> funding sources, documents on the organization's leadership and 
> operations,
> and documents that demonstrate the identity of all their individual
> constituents -- has anyone on this Committee ever heard of the concept 
> of
> privacy?).  The non-profit must also be convinced that it must 
> necessarily
> subject itself to the prospect of further possible interviews 
> regarding the
> organization's contact(s) and must potentially provide other as yet
> unspecified information about the organization.
> 6.  If the ALAC then decides to designate this organization as an 
> eligible
> "structure", the user that wishes to communicate with the ICANN Board 
> must
> next find at least three other such structures (that must be located 
> in at
> least two countries) and must persuade these structures to form a 
> regional
> organization.
> 7.  In order to form this regional body, the user must then convince 
> these
> other organizations to spend months and months developing a set of 
> bylaws
> that all organizations can agree upon, and then the user must further
> convince each non-profit organization to share in the financial burden 
> of
> establishing this new umbrella organization -- that means dedicating
> financial resources for the purpose of incorporation, and setting 
> aside funds
> to provide for an organizational website, Secretariat services, and 
> such.
> 8.  The user must also convince each such non-profit organization that 
> it's
> limited funds should be applied to this glorious experiment instead of
> remitting such limited funds as the membership fee for direct 
> participation
> in ICANN's Non-Commercial constituency (which at least gets to 
> participate in
> the election of an ICANN director).
> 9.  If the regional organization is finally created, then the user 
> must await
> the formulation of a formal Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN 
> which
> consecrates this effort...  (for some reason, this Committee of the
> Mentally-Challenged seems to think that the At-Large is so gullible 
> that it
> will willingly enter into a contract with ICANN in the full knowledge 
> that
> ICANN has broken all of its prior promises, ignored the consensus 
> conclusions
> of its own Blue Ribbon Panel (the ALSC) and has gleefully wiped out 
> all user
> representation on its Board).
> 10.  Finally, if this last stage is achieved, the user can then send 
> his
> comments to the two members of the ALAC that his regional organization 
> has
> elected.  Those two members will then transmit his message to the full
> committee that will next proceed to filter, mangle, distort, and 
> re-write his
> comments (after sincerely thanking him for his input).  The ALAC will 
> then
> transmit a non-binding "recommendation" to the Board that in turn will 
> thank
> the committee for its efforts before proceeding to ignore the comments
> received.
>
> As a user, I don't need this degree of structural bullshit just to
> communicate my sentiments directly to ICANN.  The problem is not the 
> lack of
> a structured vehicle to serve as a communications conduit... the 
> problem has
> always been that the Board has been comprised of members that can't be
> bothered to listen to the voice of the public that they purportedly 
> serve.
>
> This ALAC plan sucks.  Unfortunately, the spineless worms on the 
> Committee
> will never advocate for substantive change.  Instead, they will meekly 
> accept
> the bylaws as written and will continue to pretend to "represent" the
> At-Large.  All hail the Company Union.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html