RE: [atlarge-discuss] anyone care to RALO?

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Danny, 

The opinion read on my behalf on ralo's can be found here:
www.able-towers.com/ralos.pdf

This was read out during the debate, and with all other opponents and
despite support from Amadeo it was completely ignored.

Not that I expected anything else, but at least we are part of the
procedure, the records.

This current panel has not had time to organize in a decent fashion let
alone lead the members in these matters.
Given time we hope to do better on other topics, once our house is in
order.

Regards


abel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com] 
> Sent: 27 June 2003 16:38
> To: abel@able-towers.com
> Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] anyone care to RALO?
> 
> 
> Abel,
> 
> While all of us are appreciative of the services that both 
> you and Sotiris 
> provided on behalf of the At-Large at Montreal, the issue is not the 
> contribution of individuals to the process but rather the 
> lack of fortitude/leadership of 
> the elected Panel of icannatlarge.
> 
> The subject of RALOs has been under discussion for close to a 
> year.  We all 
> have our opinions on this topic, but what is eminently clear is that:
> 
> 1.  Even if you support the concept of RALOs, the current 
> proposal makes no 
> provision for the inclusion of global organizations such as 
> icannatlarge -- 
> this square peg does not fit into the five round holes 
> recommended by the ALAC -- 
> as such the proposal is flawed and the Panel should have 
> issued a public 
> statement to that effect.
> 2.  If you don't support the notion of RALOs, then assuredly 
> a statement 
> outlining the reasons for the organization's objections to 
> the current plan should 
> have been tendered.
> 
> Silence on the part of the leadership of this group has 
> resulted in the 
> uncontested adoption of the ALAC recommendations by the ICANN 
> Board.  Every member 
> of this Panel should have known that the topic was under 
> discussion and that a 
> decision would be reached at the Montreal session.  To argue 
> that there was 
> simply not enough time to have the Panel as a whole agree on 
> a statement is 
> pure BS.  If this Panel can't be relied upon to formally 
> present the views of its 
> membership in a timely fashion, then it is less than useless.
> 
> Will the Panel of this organization act to file a 
> reconsideration request?  
> It certainly has enough time to get that accomplished... or 
> will it again 
> proceed to do nothing?
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de