[ALAC] Bad Actor Admission

[John Laprise]

Well said Evan and I share your concerns. If memory serves, so does the
Board as MSM threats is a strategic planning issue. Musing upon waking I
was wondering whether it would help if we could implement a mechanism
whereby ICANN org could ask the empowered community to implement a pdp?
This might've avoided the current epdp issue.

Sent from my Pixel 3XL

John Laprise, Ph.D.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 4:38 AM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 02:04, Joanna Kulesza <jkuleszaicann at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'm wondering if this implies we
>> should get rid of ICANN/multistakeholderism? Is there a better alternative
>> to governing the global network? If so, what is it? I am well aware that
>> governments (some more than others) are just waiting for ICANN to fail and
>> are eager to take over where we leave it off. Is that what you're referring
>> to? Should we just give up, cos MS is a faulty model in itself? I'm
>> genuinely interested.
>>
>
> Hi Joanna,
>
> The concept of MSM is splendid, ICANN's implementation of it is awful.
>
> As Olivier said, it's about balance. In ICANN, control is in the hands of
> the cartel of domain sellers and domain buyers. By its own rules ICANN is
> *obligated* to implement what this cartel wants, and to heck with the
> rest of us. The bodies charged with protecting the public interest at ICANN
> -- governments, technology experts and At-Large -- are relegated to the
> sidelines, in advisory capacity with barely an obligation to be heard let
> alone heeded. How ICANN has operated, and the results of its decisions,
> clearly demonstrate the dominance of the will of the industry that ICANN is
> supposed charged with overseeing. The inmates truly are running the asylum,
> and the monied interests like it that way. In a way it's not very different
> than the way that Google, Facebook and other large tech firms have resisted
> public oversight and insist their self-regulation is sufficient to serve
> the public interest.
>
> There are other models of MS which I have liked better than ICANN's. The
> IETF does IMO a good job keeping corporate interests heard but not forced
> upon it. The model used at the Netmundial conference in 2014 struck a
> better balance between business, government and public interest, and
> deserves consideration. There may be other models of which I am not aware.
>
> Meanwhile ... the current status quo is propped up by never-ending FUD
> that the only alternative to ICANN's model of industry capture is the ITU
> model of government capture. Of course, the ITU does its part to support
> ICANN by periodically holding meetings so incompetently run so to justify
> the fear. What is not spoken about is the fact that genuine options exist
> beyond these two undesirable extremes.
>
> Once upon a time I believed that the Internet Governance Forum was the
> perfect place in which alternative models could be designed and proposed.
> That belief has diminished as I have found the IGF over time to revel in
> its own insignificance, and contents itself to fret over the situation
> without considering real change. I have no idea where true innovation in
> this field will come, and this realization is a major source of my current
> cynicism.
>
> If a sane alternative does not arise, we will continue to be presented
> with nothing more than choice between the ICANN or ITU ways of doing
> things. Eventually the ITU will win this binary duel because ultimately
> governments will tire of the unwillingness of ICANN to truly incorporate
> the public interest into its decision-making. And I remind once again that
> there is no international treaty requiring the countries of the world to
> acknowledge ICANN as manager of the global DNS; ICANN's mandate is
> maintained through inertia and (ever-diminishing) goodwill.
>
> I hope I have addressed your interest, at least a little bit.
>
> - 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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20190301/4f163c36/attachment.html>