[ALAC] Panel overload

[José Francisco Arce]

+1
I have the same feeling. It seems that everything needs to be more
organize. What realy ICANN (Fady) wants to reach with all this? It's about
multistekeholderism or anything else.

Jose.-
El nov 27, 2013 4:18 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org> escribió:

> I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get
> dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being
> formed.
>
>    - Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban
>    (originally fivem two have been merged)
>    - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration
>    - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia
>    - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked
>    for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a
>    joint ALAC/NCSG effort)
>
> That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be
> missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on
> within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see
> any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the
> RIRs on these matters).
>
> There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility --
> credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as
> chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them.
>
> Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are
> only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the
> other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for
> the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or
> opposed.
>
> But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that
> this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus
> beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of
> government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's
> civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked.
>
> Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best
> defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model
> appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all
> these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself
> indicates a problem with the model.
>
> All I know right now is that:
>
>    - It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and
>    what relation they have to each other;
>    - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of
>    the MSM, is diminishing by the day;
>    - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken
>    up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been
> arrogantly
>    assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly
>    satisfying.
>
> My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon.
>
> --
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
>
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>