Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: a proposed action statement

[Alexander Svensson]

Dear Mike:

This is not the forum for it, but I cannot refrain from
calling parts of the NYT editorial by Tom Friedman nonsense
(like "Unfortunately, killing 5,000 innocent Americans in
New York just doesn't get the rest of the world that exercised.")
It's completely understandable that the U.S. attention has 
been focussed on the U.S. response (especially with the 
simultaneous Anthrax scare), but the overwhelming international 
reaction was outrage, solidarity and cooperation, not "wanting 
to shake down U.S. taxpayers" (Friedman).

With all due respect, I also disagree that "it" (ICANN?) suddenly 
is "about keeping people from being killed by terrorist plots
hatched over the net":
ICANN cannot make /the Internet/ more secure. It can make
the Internet's infrastructure more secure so that this
infrastructure is a more difficult target for fanatics
outside (e.g. Bin Laden) and within (e.g. Unabomber,
Oklahoma, possibly Anthrax) the United States. 

Mike Roberts wrote:
> So what does this have to do with At Large?  First, don't expect to
> get the attention of the study committee, your fellow stakeholders in
> ICANN,  the dedicated members of the Board, or the governments whose
> sanction makes this privatization effort possible, with a
> continuation of the shallow rhetoric that has characterized the
> postings on this list. 
Not "the postings", only some. There have also been 
profound study efforts and constructive proposals.

> Second, think seriously about constructive
> improvements in the recommendations of the ALSC.  Nobody cares that
> you don't like a particular recommendation, they want to know whether
> you have a better idea, an idea that is good enough to gather the
> support of a lot of other interested parties that may not share your
> individual political or social or economic background but are
> nevertheless interested in the future welfare of ICANN.   
Yes, but unfortunately many parties have stayed away 
(or remained silent) in this forum. It's great that 
you, Kent Crispin and Joe Sims have taken the time to present 
your points of view in detail. And it seems obvious that
most people speaking out have spoken out in favour of
keeping the current number of At Large seats and against
an exclusive representation of domain name holders. So what
do we do with this? If others don't voice their concerns, 
how can they be counted as 'interested parties'? 

> Third, be
> prepared to compromise your goals in the interests of forging an At
> Large organization that contributes to an ICANN that is going to
> operate in a far different environment than its founders envisaged.
I don't quite see how the design of an At Large SO would
be different after 11 September. The problems of participation,
outreach, verification and costs remain the same (and I don't
think anyone wanted to give the ALSO direct control over the
root servers ;)).

> The study committee has worked hard. It doesn't deserve the abuse it
> has received on this list.  The several points of the action plan are
> reasonable, centrist, and provide a basis for moving forward. They
> deserve your support.
I partly agree: The ALSC doesn't deserve abuse, but I hope that
the Final Report doesn't simply start with "there were x postings
to the ALSC Forum, there were y outreach meetings, here's our result".

Best regards,
/// Alexander