[ALAC] Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Sat Feb 25 03:38:21 UTC 2012

On 24 February 2012 17:17, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

>  At 24/02/2012 04:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

On a personal basis, I had the choice of whether to join the DT and work to
> make the end-result as palatable as I could, or to simply ignore it (or
> boycott is as you phrase it). I chose the former, but that was a personal
> decision and not one on behalf of ALAC or At-Large. If I had been given a
> directive from ALAC not to participate, that might have altered the
> situation. But there were many months during which this could have
> happened, and it did not. I look forward to seeing what collective action
> ALAC takes on this now.

On the contrary, I applaud your initiative and participation.

My suggestion of a "boycott" is to not endorse the results of this action,
but to do so properly requires informed action, and your involvement has
offered that information.

It's also my understanding that one of the options offered to the drafting
team was to insist on no exceptions, but that was rejected because the
decision had already been made (opaquely and without consulting
stakeholders) to "do *something".

- However, the GAC is one component of the MSM, albeit (to paraphrase
> George Orwell), a part that is perhaps more equal than other parts.

In order for the MSM to work there still needs to be consultation (before
decisions are made) with other stakeholders.

If the GAC is to always get its way without the ability to challenge what
it wants, why bother with ICANN anyway?

> - To not factor in such GAC advice, even if delivered at the last moment,
> is to pretend that the processes and decisions that preceded it are
> infallible and by definition cannot be changed.

"Factor in" is not the same thing as "the decision's already been made by
them, opposition is fultile"

As you well know, I would be the last one here to claim that the processes
and decisions are infallable. But they have far more evidence of
deliberation and transparency than the current overriding process cooked up
by the Board and GAC, which is indeed being presented to the GNSO (and even
more indirectly, ALAC) as something that "by definition cannot be changed".

> I find the last conclusion to be a "stick your head in the sand" position
> that ignores that the world changes and we must always be in a position to
> reconsider past decisions when alerted to problems with them.

Reconsider? Sure. There are plenty of things about ICANN -- and
specifically the gTLD program -- that I consider badly flawed and would
love to have reconsidered.
And any process of reconsideration cannot be as opaque as the one inflicted
on the GNSO.

But, as you say, some stakeholders are more equal than others, and ALAC is
the least equal of all. Just don't expect us to legitimize it.

That being said, hopefully this round of last-minute GAC input has been
> troubling to all parties, including (I think) the GAC, and perhaps we are
> on a path to doing things in a more rational way in the future.

"But, nonetheless, regardless of how troubling THIS is, let's ram it
through anyway.....?"

Obviously they can't be THAT visibly troubled...

But we can be.

- Evan

More information about the ALAC mailing list