[At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board

Sat Nov 27 19:55:40 UTC 2010

Dear Sivas:
Both Jacqueline and Evan has answered to the substantive issues you raised
so I won't bounce the rubble. Suffice to say, I wholly endorse the views
expressed.

As you would know, when matters of substance are raised that demands that
your intellect, experience and socialization provide answers, sometimes one
finds oneself in unusual company.  I acknowledge we both have been on the
same side of the VI issue, albeit getting to the same place likely from
different perspectives.  But you would be wrong in thinking I acted under a
misapprehension.

Anyone in the ICANN environment who would try to glean a philosophical
perspective from what I say or write would easily find this; I tend to
the libertarian view. It is summed up thusly: there is only one rule - you
must exercise the rule of reason.  In regard the VI matter, my entry point
was on the matter of harms; 'first, do no harm'.  When the state or the
regulator or any power cannot ascribe harm to individual actors, then there
is no basis for punitive measures; the wholesale rejection of that notion of
a priori collective punishment again.    The proposal you crafted in the VI
discussions happen to largely embrace the principles I espouse all along so
for me, it was a no-brainer to sign on to this defined set of principles.

Now, I am yet certain that in other areas of operation, you hold to
principles and to notions to which I would be unalterably opposed.  It was
the same with the VI issue; good people all, with different experiences and
socialization, took another view from you and me. But from what I saw, every
view tended to thoughtful contemplation.  This is all for the good and I am
for all that.

So it is with me and Alan.  Over the last 3 years, I  acknowledge several
differences in approach to policy development with Alan.  But at no time
would I be willing to think or say his were anti-user.  He has my deepest
respect because quite frankly, nobody I know in the At-Large, myself
included, works harder more consistently on the user/consumer agenda as they
see them.  Nobody I know in the At-Large is more consistent about the need
to understand other ICANN constituencies and the desirability to forge
partnerships with them if the At-large is to have influence in moving policy
ideas forward.  Nobody I know in the At-Large is more willing to share what
he knows, readily and with good grace.

And nobody I know in the At-Large is more willing to accept disagreement,
agreeably.

These, my friend, are the attributes that makes for success in any
environment when you are in the minority, as would be the Director that sits
in Board seat #15.

For these reasons, I support Alan.  And I am unanimous on that.

Kind regards,
Carlton

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

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Carlton,
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:28 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A <
> carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
>
> > I have been asked about my views by colleagues outside of LACRALO. FWIW,
> > these are my views.....and I continue to hold them.
> >
> > Carlton
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:
> > lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
> > SAMUELS,Carlton A
> > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:13 AM
> > To: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Our choice for the ICANN Board
> >
> > We support Alan Greenberg.  That said, we shall not support a directed
> > LACRALO vote.
> >
> > It really comes down to how effective you would wish the At-Large
> appointed
> > director to be.  We would have missed the critical points totally if you
> > were to think it's about how much we like a person or how lockstep they
> > agree with our every idea. In context, it would be useful to remind
> yourself
> > that what we call the At-Large is very diverse.
> >
> > So all other qualifications being equal, effectiveness at the Board level
> > rests on the personal dynamics of our choice with the people on the
> board.
>
>
> >
>
>  [I still recall witnessing my first ICANN board meeting where I saw a very
> > attractive and bright woman being marginalized. The "Interests" simply
> shut
> > her down!].
>
>
> The bright, attractive woman whom you saw was not the only one marginalized
> and shut down by the "interests".
>
> I am drawn to dissenters.  But in this case user interests is way too
> > important just to dissent; having influence is much better.  We must
> > encourage our representative to have influence.  And then to use that
> > influence to mediate the more flagrant disavowal of user or consumer
> > interests that could arise at Board level.
> >
> > ICANN's Board is consistently peopled by persons representing the
> > "Interests".   If you're going to have influence from a position of  one,
> we
> > believe there are three things that apply 1) To be better prepared 2) To
> be
> > more broadly knowledgeable across the various ICANN constituencies 3)
> Have
> > the ability to use 1 and 2 as tools for driving consensus along a path
> > consistently more favourable to user and/or consumer interests.  This is
> the
> > process of triangulation.  It is the strategic model most utilized to
> > succeed in the majority group when you are a minority.   This is what we
> > know, almost as birthright.
> >
> > We do not always agree with Alan.  But to say he doesn't understand user
> or
> > consumer interests cannot be supported on fact. For example, on the
> > cross-ownership and related issues surrounding new gTLDs, we, as At-Large
> >  representatives, were diametrically opposed; he was for a priori
> regulation
> > and I was for 'free trade'.
>
>
> It is misleading to say Alan's opposition to the 'Free Trade" proposal is
> out of his concern for user's interests. The free trade proposal wasn't a
> free for all proposal, it was a proposal that argued that restrictions on
> cross ownerships and / or a complex set of accompanying rules will NOT
> solve
> the various 'harms' prevailing in the domain name industry. So I proposed
> that "The focus needs to be on the list of harms and how a Registrar or
> Registry may be restrained in the event that it is detected that a certain
> Registry or Registrar is engaged in harmful
> practices. *The measures can vary from relaxing Registrar accreditation
> fees
> and rules to increase the number of Registrars to foster better
> competition,
> issuing directives to a*
> *Registry to treat all Registrars on par, to withdrawal of accreditation of
> a Registrar to even directing a Registry to stop registering any more
> names*."
> That is the essence of the free trade proposal
> https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?siva_free_trade_model
> (attached
> as a PDF)
>
> Alan supported a proposal developed by Affilias, GoDaddy and others. I have
> no specific comments on this proposal.
>
> Not only in the Vertical Integration group, but in the Post Expiry Domain
> Names Recovery Group, my impression of his participation is that he is more
> aligned to the status quo than inclined to cause positive changes:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00538.html
>
> This forms part of the background that prompted me to post the following
> question to Alan:
>
> (The question and Alan's response is at page
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Community+Call+on+At-Large+Board+Director+Candidates+11.10+-+Teleconference
> but
> today I noticed that the page is inaccessible due to some reason)
>
>  *Question to Alan Greenberg from Sivasubramanian M, from APRALO, but
> > question posed as an individual*
>
>
>
> *As more and more at Large leadership positions are filled by people from
> > the business constituency, It is becoming very important for ALAC and at
> > Large to preserve at Large as a user's constituency to TRULY balance the
> > business stakeholder group. Any leadership position within ALAC and at
> Large
> > should be occupied by persons with ample concern for the end user.*
>
>  * *
>
> *My impression of your participation in the Post Expiry Domain Name working
> > group and the Vertical Integration working group is that you are soft on
> the
> > Domain Industry and muted and weak on the real issues of concerns to
> users.
> > If elected to represent at Large to take the only available seat for at
> > Large representation in the Board, wouldn't you be equally soft on
> broader
> > issues of greater importance? You have a rich experience and an
> impressive
> > background, but wouldn't it be apt for you seek to be elected to the
> ICANN
> > Board as a Business nominee rather than as a user's nominee? *
>
>  * *
>
> *If I am wrong in my impression, would you be be kind enough to clarify on
> > your choice of seeking this position as from at Large? In other words,
> would
> > you list arguments as to why ALAC members and leaders should back you
> > formally and informally as a candidate?*
>
>
> The Business of Business is to do business. A representative from Business
> is fully entitled to argue for policies favorable to the survival and
> growth
> of business. But a balance will prevail only if the users have their own
> representative whose interests are fully aligned to the users. I did not
> have this impression about Alan.
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
> >  In fact, some would have looked at this and concluded that he's more on
> > the user side than I was on this issue.  And while I deeply respect his
> > views, I tend to loathe any indication of collective punishment.  You do
> not
> > penalize until and unless you have a case.  Maybe the Board came to their
> > conclusion by another meandering route.  But in the end, they voted my
> > perspective.
> >
>
>
>
> >
> > Goes to show.
> >
> > Carlton Samuels
> > _______________________________________________
> > lac-discuss-en mailing list
> > lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>