[At-Large] Say Whut!
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Tue Dec 11 00:37:07 UTC 2018
I do not agree with your assessment that the ALS are somewhat of joke:
whilst some might well be a joke, others are quite active on many
points, so please let's not generalise. That said, I am urging again
RALOs to clean up any ineffective, inactive ALSes and this is happening
in several regions, with this potential decrease possibly replaced by a
rise in the number of individual members, which is already happening.
On your point regarding a survey, why don't you all work it out in the
ALAC Sub-Committee on Outreach and Engagement?
That's where the work takes place.
On 10/12/2018 18:42, John More via At-Large wrote:
> I agree with your direction. The ALS are somewhat of a joke. Mostly
> just vehicles for individual involvement (not itself bad). Part of
> their being somewhat of a “joke" is that most of what put forth for
> comment is of a technical character that is best worked on by those
> with the specific background needed.
> A good measure of the ALS problem is the amount of energy that is
> devoted to trying to make certain that ALSs (=their representatives
> and “members?”) are minimally engaged.
> There would be a benefit for an internal review of whether the ALAC
> can fulfill its bylaw purposes with its current structure and
> activities (as opposed to the broader ones you suggest).
> Could start with a survey, as suggested by Christian. DO NOT HIRE
> outside experts and consultants — major waste of money ALWAYS. More
> than enough talented and thoughtful people in the ALAC world.
> John More
>> On Dec 10, 2018, at 7:28 AM, Evan Leibovitch
>> <evanleibovitch at gmail.com <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com>> 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 virtual 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
>> 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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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>
>> > <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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > @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>
>> <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com
>> <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>> > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/07/dot_web_review/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > At-Large mailing list
>> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:cdel at firsthand.net>
>> 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
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large