[governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?

[Jacqueline A. Morris]

That Milton, is one of the things that we have to accept in a bottom-up
process that gives the users the power. They may decide to do things that
you, me, others don't agree with. But if a lot more of them vote to spend
energy and resources for the Summit and none for the .us contract, than the
ones who vote the other way, that's the democratic process.

Can't have it both ways. 

Of course, it isn't either-or - if 1 person was interested and no one else
was, there is the possibility to draft a position by oneself, and submit it
to NARALO for approval as a NARALO statement, or to ALAC - and if they don't
approve it, send it in by oneself!

That said, there's loads of discussion in the Caribbean on redelegation
issues (.bb was just redelegated to the Barbados Government) so all of the
RALOs are not focused (or unfocused) on the same issues. That's one of the
principles of the At Large - regional diversity.

Jacqueline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 22:27
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris;
> yehudakatz at mailinator.com
> Subject: RE: Re: [governance] What happened at the NARALO/ALAC/CCNSO?
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
> >
> > From re-reading the email list - Danny raised an issue, there was no
> > traction from other At Large participants, maybe it wasn't important
> to
> > the others, maybe for other reasons. For whatever reason, there was
> no
> > follow up from the At Large membership. It's definitely a bottom-up
> > process - ALAC
> > can't be bottom-up and yet force an issue if the region or other
> members
> > aren't interested.
> 
> True enough, Jackie, but what Danny was pointing out is that the North
> American RALO apparently had no interest, or nothing to say, about one
> issue that is clearly within its remit: the re-contracting of .us. That
> is sad.
> 
> You go on to say something which reinforces Danny's point:
> 
> > Compare this to the Summit idea - that came from Sebastien in Lisbon,
> > gained
> > a lot of interest from ALSes in San Juan and is now a major project
> across
> > all regions. (It did hit some procedural bumps on the way, but they
> are
> > mainly past) - that's bottom-up.
> 
> A "global Summit of Internet users" strikes me as an example of how
> misdirected bottom up politics can become. If a summit of internet
> users has any value, it is because it will allow the voice of large
> numbers of mobilized users to be brought to bear on concrete policy
> issues. But if those users have _no positions_, nothing of substance to
> say on specific policy choices brought before ICANN and other
> institutions, then what good is it?
> 
> Certainly the organizers of such a summit will feel important if it
> attracts a large crowd. Certainly it will create opportunities for
> budding new politicians to become more visible. But what is their
> agenda, what do they have to say, what principles will guide them? And
> how will that be brought to bear on specific, real policy choices in
> real governance agencies?
> 
> I would rather attend a meeting of 12 people who know what they want to
> do and are willing and able to intervene in real processes, than a
> meeting of 12,000 people who don't and aren't.
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date:
> 12/9/2007 11:06 AM
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance