RE: [ALSC-Forum] methodology

[Bruce Young]

Alan wrote:

>I am mostly interested to better understand the research methodology that
>you used to in your  "work toward a consensus solution for At Large
>participation" (as taken from the ALSC charter). The final report includes
>what I can see as only recommendations. Could someone possibly elaborate on
>the way that these recommendations were reached as I think I am (or the
>report is) missing something.

You're insight is fine, Alan. What is missing from the report is substance,
because there was no meaningful attempt to obtain it.  In retrospect, it is
obvious that there was never any true intent to honor the White Paper's
mandate to give Internet users an equal voice in ICANN's governance.  The
ALSC process was solely a means to effect what the industry-dominated board
has intended all along: the disenfranchisement of Internet users.

Regardless of the impressive meeting list in the ALSC reports, no meaningful
outreach has ever been attempted: no meeting notices were ever directly
posted outside of this forum and other ICANN and Internet industry-related
sites (I get over 40 tech-related e-mail "newsletters" a day.  I would have
noticed!); no announcements on Wired, Slashdot, C|Net, ZDNet, etc. (a few
articles from journalist who fell upon the info themselves, but that isn't
the same as an open call for comments and/or attendance!); no news segments
on NBC News or CNN explaining to average citizens the importance of ICANN
and asking for attendance or comments; etc., etc.  All of these things
*could* have been done.  None were.  By holding the meetings in the fashion
they did, they are able to point to the meetings as evidence of outreach,
use the general absence of public participation (which their lack of
outreach ensured!) as evidence of a lack of public interest and/or
consensus, and stack the meeting with people representing industry
interests, to users' detriment.

Many voices in this forum have been calling for a very different result than
that which the ALSC published.  However, the contrarian views voiced here
have never even been so much as *noted in passing*, much less taken into
account, in any of the ALSC's reports to date.  At this late date, it is
sadly my opinion that this forum was apparently emplaced solely to further
ALSC evidence of "outreach," and that there was never any true intent on the
Committee's part to take seriously anything said here that didn't further
the now-obvious aims of the ALSC process: to conduct an exercise in such a
manner as to show that all the forms were followed, and then manage the
outcome to obtain the result they wanted!


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
byoung651@home.com
http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html