<html>
<body>
Evan, there is a lot of truth in what you say (although I am far less
sure that your 3-part formula is the answer). But I return to the
original question of Community gTLD Applications. If this is an important
issue to us (and it does seem to be), how can we get more involvement in
the issue so the outcomes have a higher chance of meeting what we believe
is needed?<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 07/09/2017 02:54 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On 6 September 2017 at 23:43,
Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>*IF* this matter is really important, it is problematic that so few
people are participating in the PDP.<br><br>
</dl><br>
Of course it is problematic. It is also completely predictable and
understandable and always has been; it is has been a built-in ICANN
process design to handicap our efforts.<br><br>
At-Large, by definition, is here to represent the interests of end-users.
Its membership does not have domain buying or selling as primary
livelihoods (if they are they really ought not to be here as their
interests are being represented elsewhere in the ICANN ecosystem). As a
result, most participants here have day jobs and Other Things To Do. To
them, Internet governance is a sideline, an interest, maybe even a
passion. But they are at a MASSIVE disadvantage compared to those
for whom ICANN awareness and manipulation is a job. ICANN processes are
heavily biased in favour of those who commit their lives, and against the
typical ALS or individual member. This is fine for the paid staff,
consultants and academics for whom involvement in ICANN and Internet
governance pays their rent. The rest of us, not so good.<br><br>
Look at the time consumption of even the most trivial PDP. High-level
issues are shunted aside while trivial details and definitions consume
person-hours by the hundreds. A WG that Alan and I now attend regarding
the process for allocating ICANN auction funds has been spending weeks on
the definition of "what is an open Internet". In my decades of
public service, ICANN's rate of accomplishment-per-volunteer-hour is
massively less than anything else I have done in my life.<br><br>
So it's no wonder At-Large participation in WGs is so rare. The number of
people able to cope with the time commitment, the many other barriers (no
language interpretation!!), small groups of aggressive speakers who
dominate the debates and shut down dissent through derision and legalese.
WGs usually meet at ICANN meetings, putting those who don't travel to
them at a disadvantage. It can easily be overwhelming, especially when it
so often leads to our not being heard anyway unless we agree with the
pack.<br><br>
Let's please be honest. At any given time, the number of people in
At-Large who can cope with all this, and put in the heroic levels of
commitment of folks like Alan, usually requires only one hand to count.
Most others have three choices when a PDP (or similar WG) offer arises:
<ul>
<li>Have a substantially diminished personal life for the duration of the
PDP to do it right, in a way that may well impact their actual
income-producing work
<li>Be involved in the PDP at a reduced rate, but then eventually get
lost by falling behind
<li>Sit it out, and get involved instead in outreach or infrastructure
(still challenging, but not on the scale -- or with the hostility -- of
the policy work)
</ul>Compounding the problem is that PDPs are commissioned by the GNSO
with few exceptions, and if the WG is not designated as cross community
(rare), At-Large's ability to frame the topics and counter the agenda of
a determined and unified domain industry is ... weak.<br><br>
There are some steps that may be taken to improve the situation:
<ul>
<li>Dedicate At-Large staff to policy development support to assist those
At-Large people who choose to get involved
<li>Deal with responses at a higher level so that our people can make
informed input without having to be involved in every step of the
inevitable minutiae
<li>Create an annual strategic plan for policy to highlight the areas of
concern, and stick faithfully to only participate in, and respond to,
process that impact those areas
</ul>Without these steps (and maybe even with them) our volunteer
resources simply are not able to match the involvement and relentlessness
of the domain industry communities.<br><br>
The answer is not to scare off newcomers or burn out veterans. Rather,
At-Large must recognize the limitations with which we must work in policy
development, and develop creative ways within the ICANN bylaws to make
our voice most effective given who we are and what we are able to
do.<br><br>
Cheers,.<br><br>
- Evan<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>