[At-Large] Say Whut!
javrua at gmail.com
Mon Dec 10 16:58:27 UTC 2018
> On Dec 10, 2018, at 12:53 PM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net> wrote:
> Is the challenge one of structure and representation institutionally or
> has the changes to empower an industry dependent on intermediation at
> ICANN and Internet as a whole over the last few years squeezed out the
> user stake in the DNS?
> Perhaps the place to start is to ask if the growth of Internet users
> since 1995 to today (16 million to c.4.1billion) is also reflected in
> those users having a domain name. I don't get that impression. But it is
> hard to get reliable data from ICANN or anywhere.
> As to the health of the current domain registration market as a system
> one could start by asking what is the proportion of registered domain
> names that are actually being used and required for personal or
> business, rather than for defensive reputational and brand purposes?
> What would happen to the registries and registrars industry model
> fostered by ICANN if users abandoned their defensive DNS registrations
> as (local) regulators take up the slack?
> Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>> 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 exercise.
>> 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 mandate.
>> 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 areas:
>> - Creation and distribution of plain language public education on the
>> DNS and how it affects public use of the internet (written
>> independently of ICANN itself)
>> - surveys and R&D into public needs and opinions about domain names
>> and the DNS
>> - analysis of the result of such research, and development of ICANN
>> input based on that (both in original policy initiatives and response
>> to existing activity)
>> 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 <mailto:cdel at firsthand.net> wrote:
>> 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,
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, 1:07 am Evan Leibovitch
>> <evanleibovitch at gmail.com <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto: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
>>> 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
>>> the rationale for new rounds at all? Also, I've previously
>>> 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
>>> and without a regulatory role ICANN has no incentive to push
>>> against the money. This needs to be changed, or others will
>>> it from the outside.
>>> I remind that we are now living through a period of time in
>>> 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
>>> (*) 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>
>> <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com
>> <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>> At-Large mailing list
>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> Christian de Larrinaga
>> @ FirstHand
>> +44 7989 386778
>> cdel at firsthand.net <mailto:cdel at firsthand.net>
> Christian de Larrinaga
> @ FirstHand
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel at firsthand.net
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large