[ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP

[Carlton Samuels]

Speaking truth to power can be such a lonely task.  For it is beginning to
look as if Evan has been on this solo for ever. He's right in his analysis.
Ain't even a whole helluva lot of nothing to show for our interventions.
 So, what do we do?

In some ways being in the ICANN At-Large is like unrequited love.  You know
you will not get the prize but you soldier on, at least convinced that what
you feel is real. And you hope, sometimes against hope itself, that your
day to hear "I love you" will come.

This enterprise is too important to people who have no voice and need one
for us to cede the field.  With all the passion you see, this is what you
hear from Evan.  That's a +1.

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> On 3 October 2013 19:56, Rinalia Abdul Rahim
> <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> > I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention:
> >
> > 1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program -
> > let's draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers?
> >
> > 2. A Public Forum intervention on the same.
> >
> > 3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at
> > least at an ALAC policy discussion session).
>
>
>
> I guess my main response to this is one of weariness.
>
> So we make a statement on the sorry state of the expansion program. Heaven
> knows there is a MASSIVE list of errors, unintended consequences,
> implementations that don't follow the spirit of policy. Worst of all is
> continuation of a compliance atmosphere that treats complaints from the
> public as hostile confrontations to be rebuffed and minimized -- not by
> making the system better for end-users, but by making it harder to
> complain. The PICDRP is just the latest.
>
> But what, right now, would a statement say? What would it ask for?
>
> If it's just a matter of going on the record with our issues ... so what?
> Nobody's listening. The gTLD locomotive is running at top speed, generally
> pilotless, the brakes have been sabotaged, and the industry is just hoping
> it gets as far as the bank before it derails.
>
> Dare we ask for a delay to deal with all these ugly public-interest issues?
> And have the rest of the ICANN community despise us ... while it ignores
> us?
>
> A statement, a Forum speech and a round table are tactics; what is the
> objective? Let everyone know we're unhappy? Again?
>
> They know. They don't care, at least not enough to act on what we
> recommend. Even Applicant Support would not have happened without GAC
> intervention, and even then the resulting program turned out to be wholly
> inaccessible.
>
> Anyone remember this?
>
> *We believe that "public benefit" declarations within TLD applications will
> be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to substantial modification
> (and difficulty of enforcement) post-delegation.*
>
>
> That was part of a early 2011 submission from the ALAC that responded to
> both the GAC Scorecard on the gTLD program and the Board response to the
> Scorecard<
> https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+GAC+New+gTLD+Scorecard
> >.
> Little that we asked for came about; the trademark over-jealousness
> requested by the GAC to which we objected has snuck in anyway, yet our
> support of the GAC for more categories, and most of our other concerns
> (such as dot-brands not having been sufficiently thought out) went largely
> unheeded.
>
> That was more than two years ago, when there was still an opportunity to
> nudge things if not steer them differently. Now opportunity for real change
> is smaller yet.
>
> The lack of substantive change in the PICDRP reveals that the corporate
> mindset and cultural end-user hostility of ICANN hasn't really budged, the
> rules are still all stacked in favour of the domain industry and against
> public interest complaints. The problems are fundamental in the resolution
> process and beyond minor refinements; but once the gTLD staff has gone in a
> process -- no matter how loopy -- it rarely backtracks. Not for us, at
> least. Problems we saw in the early years are manifesting now in nasty
> ways. And while we sometimes get heard in some of the smaller details on
> putting out these fires, the big cultural problems of ICANN -- of industry
> entitlement and end-user hostility -- refuse to wane.
>
> So what, exactly, do we want to tell the Board as Advice, or the rest of
> the community in a workshop or Forum comment? What outcome do we want?
>
> I'll help write something, but I've lost the interest in penning One More
> Expression of Mildly Cloaked Disgust.
>
> - Evan
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>