[ALAC] When will ALAC make its conflict of interest statement?

[JJS]

*Dear Beau,*
*
*
*thank you for bringing our attention to focus on this point, at this time.
Here is the position of one member of the ALAC:*
*
*
*Context*
*
*
*- At the Board/Alumni breakfast in San José, I asked whether the statement
by the NTIA revealed a US strategy to deflect international criticism of
the continued single-party control of ICANN, while at the same time
providing Washington with some flexibility (better wait for the appointment
of the next CEO before handing over an extension of the IANA function to
ICANN, without even the semblance of a competition). The answer to my
question was too simple: "it might be tempting to see some dark strategy
behind all this, but there's no reason, really, to believe in this kind of
conspiracy theory". My Alumni colleagues, and Board members as far as I
could ascertain, seemed satisfied. I consider that my question was not
thoroughly answered, and what's more, I feel concerned that the Board, by
avoiding to push its analysis far enough, may be deluding itself on the
scope of the crisis.*
*
*
*- The institutional competition, and what leaders of ICANN see as a direct
threat from the ITU, will not just dissolve. I am concerned that community
leaders have not been associated with what is arguably one of the most
topical policy issues at this stage in the life of ICANN, i.e. the overall
governance arrangement regarding the Internet: who does what, with what
range of support. Though in no way an insider, I suppose the natural
tendency of the Board will be to have the next CEO concentrate on
alleviating the internal tensions in the corporation, rather than letting
her/him carry out a vast programme of public diplomacy. If this turns out
to be true, the risk is that the institutional balance of governance might
be put in danger, without ICANN weighing in sufficiently in favour of the
multi-stakeholder model, as a means of upholding the global public
interest. During one of the public sessions, I hinted at this, and went so
far as to suggest that, if the next CEO is indeed to concentrate on the
internal dimension of ICANN, the Board would be well inspired to take up
some of the slack in the corporation's international duties (specifically,
I think the Board's vice-chair should be given the task of coordinating the
"outside" function, and be the chair of the Global Partnerships Committee).*
*
*
*Action*
*
*
*- Beau's point must be taken seriously. By failing to express concern at
the way the Board has drifted into the quagmire of Conflict of Interest,
the ALAC would be remiss in defending the global public interest.*
*
*
*- The question is how to address this widespread concern. Some felt that
Beau's initial formulation was too contentious to become an ALAC statement.
Fair enough. But Beau's central point must be addressed, and quickly: do we
express concern at the drift, and if so what corrective action do we
recommend? I recommend that we consider this a priority.*
*
*
*- To cut a long story short, we are faced with a choice:*
*     - to take up Beau's challenge and, on the basis of his draft, to
prepare a statement with all due concern for wording, keeping future
options open;*
*     - or to refuse this ALAC approach, sit by as Beau publishes a piece
in his private capacity, and perhaps some of us support his initiative as
individuals;*
*     - or let Beau publish, and just keep silent.*
*
*
*There is an immediate challenge to the relevance of the ALAC: we should
rise to the occasion.*
*
*
*Best regards,*
*Jean-Jacques.*
*
*

Le 20 mars 2012 04:14, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net> a écrit :

> Hope everyone had good journeys back.
>
> I assume you all have seen this story in the New York Times?
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-naming-firm-goes-public.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1332165645-IV28j+gNERC8I8kD5rURmA
>
> ALAC is frequently concerned with how it is perceived by others,
> especially when it comes to representing the user community.
>
> For the New York Times to have written a story like this, it must have
> deemed the story to be relevant to the general public.
>
> Yet ALAC, despite having ample opportunity and guidance during the week,
> failed to make a statement, even when it was already written for them,
> twice, by me. It distracted itself by claiming the story was no big news,
> or out of scope, or too confrontational for its multicultural nature, etc.
> etc. And it was distracted by the failure of LACRALO to conduct a
> meaningful general assembly. Rather than focus on policy issues, such as
> this one, it focused on elections of its own officers. Fortunately, I do
> believe Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised the conflict of interest issue in the
> public forum, but, as he eloquently pointed out to the list, he was
> something of a lone voice in doing so.
>
> Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the
> New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude
> that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its
> mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the
> publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on
> here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a
> journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all).
>
> Beau Brendler
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>