I think this largely depends on what is defined as an "end-user". The reason the ALAC is failure is that there is a complete mismatch between the stuff ICANN does and what these "end users" THINK ICANN does or should be doing. The ALAC members are largely made up of "civil society" or "political science" folks with an agenda and a strong passion for international travel -- and most of all a desire to be HEARD, no matter how irrelevant their topic is. The only thing I could suggest that would make sense in the case of the IETF would be an improved linkage to the OPERATOR community (e.g. NANOG), but I don't really think the IETF wants or needs to hear from my father, born in 1919, even if he is indeed an Internet "end-user". Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxx URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Given that ICANN's ALAC is the example that has had the most effort put behind > it, and it is indeed a complete failure, why do you think the IETF would do > any better? Or, even if we did do better in the long run, that the huge amount > of effort it would take would not have been better spent on technical matters? > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf