[ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future

[Alberto Soto]

Dear Olivier, none of my comments or questions were answered. I think most
of all comments have not been answered, even before the first draft.

 

Kind regards

 

Alberto

 

De: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond
Enviado el: Sunday, February 5, 2017 6:39 PM
Para: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; At-Large Worldwide
<at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Asunto: [At-Large] Fwd: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN
At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future

 

Dear all,

FYI -- a response from me, to a thread that came up on the ISOC Chapter
leaders mailing list.
The topic is specifically the downgrading of At-Large Structures by
equalling them to individual membership. With many chapters as At-Large
Structures, the Internet Society Chapters would be affected.

BTW -- as part of the At-Large Review working group, I submitted over 100
comments on the original document that was presented by the consultants to
the Review working group. It appears that most of my comments were ignored.
I plan to comment further - when I find the time to do so - and would be
happy to contribute to an ALAC comment.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

ps. I admit that I am one of the "big-mouthed" people. :-)

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 


Subject: 

Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters
role and future


Date: 

Sun, 5 Feb 2017 01:37:05 +0100


From: 

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond  <mailto:ocl at gih.com> <ocl at gih.com>


To: 

Alejandro Pisanty  <mailto:apisanty at gmail.com> <apisanty at gmail.com>, Richard
Hill  <mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch> <rhill at hill-a.ch>


CC: 

ISOC Chapter Delegates  <mailto:chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
<chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>

 

 
On 04/02/2017 21:01, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Problems like capture by a few individuals will not be solved and in
> fact most likely will be aggravated by the "enhanced membership model."
 
The Review carries anonymous quotes from people who dislike the fact
that At-Large and the ALAC are standing in their way to turn ICANN into
a domain name business association. Bringing the input of Internet end
users to ICANN's technically and legally super-complex processes is a
very hard task indeed. I know - I chaired that process for 4 years and
to say that it was challenging is an understatement. But the current
structure of At-Large which has several tiers for hierarchy of "control"
but an entirely open bottom-up model where everybody is allowed to
attend any meeting or call and to participate and to voice their
opinion, actually provides for a stable environment with stable
processes which can actually help in reaching consensus and getting the
ALAC to act. That is exactly the thing that bothers other parts of
ICANN: that the ALAC is slowly but surely, over time, surmounting the
largest hurdle to a multi-stakeholder system which is to get the input
of the real end users out there - and that it is doing so with renewed
harmony and proven bottom-up processes.
 
Instead, as Alejandro mentions, the Review asks for a return to an
unstable, free for all, system based only on individual members speaking
for themselves only, a system that was shown to fail miserably as it
generates conflict with no safeguards whatsoever and favours those with
a bigger mouth than anyone else. The ICANN version 1 experiment failed
noticeably in the early 2000s, with ballot stuffing in wide practice and
mailing lists that were filled with flame wars fuelled by socio-paths. I
remember that so well: having been subscribed to the early DNSO (Domain
Name Support Association) mailing list, I quickly got sick of the daily
dose of venom from psychos that should have been interned, un-subscribed
myself and, after the failed At-Large elections which I predicted were
going to fail, removed myself completely from having anything to do with
ICANN until it had a meeting in Paris in 2008.
 
The Review is deeply flawed in that it is not an analysis of At-Large
and the ALAC. On the contrary, it is a collection of opinions, many of
them deeply flawed or factually wrong, and recommendations derived from
these flawed opinions. Good opinions of At-Large were ditched and only
criticism was kept, whether warranted or unwarranted. It is a lynching
of reality and I give it as much truth as the flawed populist campaigns
the world has recently seen, thus predicting an equally gruesome future
for At-Large.
 
By following the mantra "Let's make At-Large great again", the reviewers
are actually proposing to kill it.
 
Kindest regards,
 
Olivier
(own opinions)
_______________________________________________
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170205/99f18a35/attachment.html>