[At-Large] Say Whut!
evanleibovitch at gmail.com
Mon Dec 10 12:28:07 UTC 2018
Given my experiences and observations... While I have totally stayed away
from the last At-Large review, I did one myself as a personal mental
The conclusion I came to is that the current structure underneath ALAC is
overly politicized, appeals to superficial airs of importance, and is at
its core designed to be utterly impotent in regard to serving its bylaw
Were I to be engaged in a real exercise to enable ALAC to serve its bylaw
mandate, I would wish to eliminate ALSs and move to fully individual
membership in RALOs. I would reduce travel and invest more in vitual
meeting technologies. I would also concentrate ALAC activity in ONLY three
- Creation and distribution of plain language public education on the DNS
and how it affects public use of the internet (written independently of
- surveys and R&D into public needs and opinions about domain names and the
- analysis of the result of such research, and development of ICANN input
based on that (both in original policy initiatives and response to existing
Any takers? I'm happy to engage if any interest exists. My rationale behind
this is quite deep and I'm happy to expand if interest exists.
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 11:45 AM Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net
> Given the clarity of these two comments. Maybe it is time to consider a
> straw poll over what future role and activity At Large participants feel
> is viable? Given the experience of the continuous perilous undermining
> of the Internet edge by every digital miner with a pickaxe, shovel or
> stick of dynamite?
> Carlton Samuels wrote:
> > Yessir, I can recall your exact words to me so long ago; waste of
> > time, decision already made. The reasoning you offered was bold, too.
> > I was interested at one point. Then when it was too clearly a bridge
> > too far, I retired to the shadows.
> > A congressman from Texas once told a writer I truly loved that in
> > politics you have no right to call yourself a politician if you cant
> > drink their whiskey, take their women and money and still vote against
> > them. Theres a lesson there somewhere.
> > The arguments you hear on this or that are stimulating for a policy
> > wonk. But quite frankly at this point much of what the At-Large does
> > is margin-gathering.
> > Someone has to. And we live in hope.
> > -Carlton
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, 1:07 am Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com
> > <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So... Do all of you who sank your valuable time into that
> > where-do-the-auction-funds-go sham of a process feel a little
> > betrayed now?
> > How many more times will we continue to play this futile game?
> > The fix is always in. Let the "community" thrash about with
> > well-meaning but big-picture-pointless debate, then swoop in at
> > the end to remind where the ultimate decision lies. It lies with
> > the money.
> > "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
> > I got fooled enough with the Applicant Support process, the CCT
> > and a few others. Yeah, it's more than one but at least I can say
> > I know the experience intimately. But the aftermath of these
> > efforts (or lack thereof) is why you don't see me wasting my time
> > on subsequent ones. (Cue the theme music from "CSI:Miami".)
> > Countless of my colleagues continue the good-faith attempt to
> > disprove Einstein's definition of insanity(*), unsuccessfully. I
> > love my ALAC friends (I've literally invited you to my home) and
> > it pains me to watch the story repeat so often.
> > But sooner or later the collective massochism and denial has to
> > end. Turnover in ALAC is low enough to have plenty of veterans
> > around who should know better.
> > Stop playing the game. Challenge the rules instead. Perfect
> > example: why is ALAC involved in the minutiae of "subsequent
> > procedures" for new rounds of gTLDs without having even challenged
> > the rationale for new rounds at all? Also, I've previously spoken
> > at length about ALAC's sad longtime choice to respond to the
> > agendas of others rather than even try to set its own.
> > Monied interests overpower us politically by orders of magnitude,
> > and without a regulatory role ICANN has no incentive to push
> > against the money. This needs to be changed, or others will change
> > it from the outside.
> > I remind that we are now living through a period of time in which
> > awful political choices are being made, all over the world, in
> > desperate moves to disrupt deaf and corrupt status quo. ICANN and
> > ALAC ignore this trend at their danger.
> > ___________________
> > Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
> > @evanleibovitch/@el56
> > (*) that may not have ever actually been said by Einstein, but
> > it's a useful phrase regardless of source.
> > On Dec 9, 2018 12:34 AM, "Carlton Samuels"
> > <carlton.samuels at gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>
> > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/07/dot_web_review/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> Christian de Larrinaga
> @ FirstHand
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel at firsthand.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large