<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On 11 October 2015 at 09:57, parminder </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">
</font></div></blockquote><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">you are ocuppying the ALAC space and
providing the ICANN system its most important source of
legitimacy.</font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">According to whom?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">While within ICANN, I used to believe this. But most of the ICANN community doesn't seem to think so.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><ul><li>The governments assert that they are the entitled custodians of their respective public interests and don't need other players.<br><br></li><li>The domain industry challenges At-Large's legitimacy at every turn (in part through endless obsessions of demanding re-definition of "what is public interest? Aren't domainers part of the public too?"). So long as ALAC is complacent, it is useful internally. Whenever it stirs the pot the "who the hell are you?" attitude is uneasingly quick to surface, even among some Board members<br><br></li><li>The civil society / academic component (ie, the NCSG) is more often angry with ALAC than friendly because ALAC doesn't fall in lock-step with its views (and -- horrors! -- sometimes sides with government over industry), compounded with a poorly-concealed jealousy of ALACs travel subsidy</li></ul></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">In the absence of that, from where does the legitimacy come? Who is supporting it, offering encouragement from the outside, imploring ICANN to listen to that voice in its ear?</div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">One of the depressing results of the relentless "who the hell are you", is a very distracting tendency of ALAC to engage in endless self-discovery. There are active groups within ALAC created for instance, to examine performance metrics for At-Large participants (as if that will have any value in proving ALAC's worth to ICANN).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">But
I never hear them say things that I hear from you - we have given
up, and even, now mostly see it all as a some kind of
entertainment. This last is almost blasphemous to say - you are in
this on the behalf of the most powerless in the world, and the
work that you are abdicating involves power dis-balances and the
opportunity to correct them.</font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">I do not deny that I find entertainment within <div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">some </div>things that those inside the ICANN bubble find deathly serious -- in much the same way that John Oliver's or Jon Stewart's writers can find humour in even the darkest situations. <div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">But I found that entertainment even while within ALAC leadership. Some of what happens is so stupid it can't help but be funny. </div>If that is blasphemous, so be it.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">What is serious to me, is that beyond</div> the maintenance of the root servers and the stability of the ccTLDs and a handful of gTLDs, the DNS IMO will become increasingly irrelevant to the public by its own hand. So I choose to refocus on where my own talents can be best used to serve my concept of the public good. As a matter of good fortune, my current employment offers a new perspective which assists this. To use your phrasing, the most powerless in the world have far greater Internet challenges to address than who claims the rights to dot-africa...</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">those who most surprisingly claim that these issues are
simply not important enough should then tell others why do they
spend time on this area at all... By default they are legitimising
a system, why then they are doing it. Let people do work they
think is important, and they can usefully contribute to, and leave
the space of representation of the interests of ordinary Internet
users in global Internet governance regimes to those who consider
work in this area as important from a public interest point of
view, and are ready to take up the needed struggle.<br></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">Such lectures assume far too much: GIGO.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">My withdrawal from ICANN was by no means a retreat from efforts to make the Internet better. I am simply channeling my own efforts in ways that I believe will have a better ratio of good-done per hour-spent.<br></div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">There are quality people within ALAC that can and do fight the good fight. A few of them I have personally helped recruit. I know their passion and character and trust their actions. But, from my personal perspective, I find the answer to "who oversees ICANN" to be far less critical to the future of the Internet than most reading this message appear to.</div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">Yes, there were were challenges within ICANN that I thought important. But even most of the "wins" turned out to be symbolic at best (an applicant support regime that served nobody, and a TLD objection process that eventually deemed ALAC had no standing). Maybe what is needed is fresh blood, and I cheer on those who have succeeded me within the organization. I do not belittle those in ICANN still taking on the challenge; I will support as I am able, but from a distance and possibly with some useful hindsight (else why am I reading this email list?). Personally I believe that much of the damage that ICANN can do has already been done. Ongoing, ALAC has a useful role in mitigating that damage but cannot undo the damage any more than it could prevent it.</div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">(BTW: Within ALAC, I was one of a number who argued *in favour* of closed generics. The resulting ALAC position was not lazy or ill-considered, but it did go against the civil society orthodoxy. Disagreeing with a conclusion does not justify belittling the process that led there.)<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">Alan, Olivier and others have offered a fine explanation of the ALAC position on the transition. Whether you agree or not, it is well considered and the result of substantial person-hours and I trust their judgment. I would not have been able to do what they did.</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">No personal offence to anyone please, I am making an entirely
general political argument, for reasons that I consider important
enough to devote some of my time to pursing them.</font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">Ditto. You might want to make fewer assumptions if you want those "general" arguments to be generally useful.</span><br></div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">- Evan</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif"><br></div><br></div></div>
</div></div>