| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 ALAC May Not Be Representative, But it Can Still Be Right
posted by michael on Saturday May 17 2003, @08:01PM
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), interim rump dept., may be a company union with almost no grass-roots support, but it seems to have some bite. Relish this ALAC comment on
"Task Force" Chair Phil Sheppard's attempt to railroad the intellectual property/Stuart Lynn vision of new gTLDs. [Recall that "Task Forces" are ICANN's way of controlling who drafts documents -- they are designed to exclude.]
|
|
 |
|
Philip Sheppard's plan is simple: ignore the 'testbed', don't look at the results from the last round, break all the promises to the disappointed applicants, keep the public away from the decision process, and announce that only tiny TLDs no one wants will be allowed in the foreseeable future. That's the game plan, and that's what likely will happen. But meanwhile, join me in thanking Wendy Seltzer for speaking up against it in some detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
ALAC May Not Be Representative, But it Can Still Be Right
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 2 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
I have generally been very impressed with the quality of the Interim ALAC's submissions on policy issues. There has been little I disagree with and they have expressed common sense views is a forceful yet not antagonistic manner.
Naturally I support that ALAC should be elected as a bottom up process but do note that organisations which have tried to organise bottom up such as IDNO and icannatlarge.org have spent months and years discussing process and almost never producing policy statements, while ALAC have done basically the opposite.
Perhaps there is a sensible middle ground somewhere? Not to say that I agree with all ALAC has done - the draft criteria for RALOs are unworkable, but the policy submissions have been good.
DPF
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
It's pretty easy for a group of people who don't represent Internet users (or domain name owners, or whatever) to come out with statements that match those of people who disagree with ICANN. So what? They should be spending 100% of their time on the difficult (possibly impossible) task of proving that they can represent who they are supposed to. Until then, they're just going to be singing to the choir (that's us).
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
