ALAC May Not Be Representative, But it Can Still Be Right
Date: Saturday May 17 2003, @08:01PM
Topic: ICANN Does Good

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.

This discussion has been archived.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
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Threshold:
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
ALAC comments are very good
by dpf (dpf@ihug.co.nz) on Sunday May 18 2003, @10:31PM (#11676)
User #2770 Info | http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/
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 ]
Representation is more important
by phoffman@proper.com on Monday May 19 2003, @12:12PM (#11685)
User #2063 Info
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 ]




This article comes from ICANNWatch
http://www.icannwatch.org/

The URL for this story is:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/18/0127219