<html>
<body>
Parminder, I have only limited time and this will be brief, focussing on
just a few of your points.<br><br>
At 11/10/2015 03:57 AM, parminder wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Verdana">Before I
respond to these two kinds of responses, which appear rather opposed to
one another and strange to be coming from the same group which fact
itself suggests some level of dysfunctionality of the
group,</font></blockquote><br>
I find nothing wrong with multiple points of view within a group. In
fact, it is rather healthy. If opposing views within a group were to be
taken as dysfunctionality, then based on the mailing lists that I read,
Civil Society is terminally dysfunctional and should be
abandoned.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Verdana">First about
the argument that a membership based model as currently proposed is such
that it will lead to capture of ICANN processes by DN industry related
commercial interests. Very interesting! And I wholly agree with the
spirit behind it.... But my question to Olivier and Alan, and others who
support thier contention, is simple and straightforward; how do you then
accept the fact that the most important policy work - as the most
political pubic function - that ICANN does, which is GTLD related
policy development, is done by the same group which you now say is
captured by commercial interests. I havent ever heard you opposing that
fundamental pillar of ICANN - but please do correct me if I am wrong.
</font></blockquote><br>
You are wrong on several counts. I did not claim that the GNSO or ICANN
was captured. I said that ICANN (and by implication the GNSO) is subject
to capture if care is not taken to have balancing processes and powers.
<br><br>
- The GNSO does not set policy. It recommends policy and the Board under
the current Bylaws, is free to reject those recommendations, or to ask
that the GNSO revise them. It has done so in the past.<br><br>
- Certain groups do have a large say in GNSO recommendations, but it is
also up to the other groups to balance them. Often, there is actually
agreement that something is "broken" and needs to be fixed.
Most GNSO PDPs actually have all parties working together to achieve a
better environment (as hard as that may be for some to believe). At
times, there are differences, and in those cases care needs to be taken.
If in any given case, the policy process does not properly address the
public interest, the Board is there as a backstop.<br><br>
- The ALAC has regularly made statements that in cases where the public
interest (in our view, since the term is VERY subjective) is at odds with
the interests of the contracted parties, there is the POTENTIAL for
skewed results. Our advice has been that we need to take action to
increase active participation of those parties that are less well funded,
to have the Board monitor policy outcomes to ensure that the results are
balanced, and possibly one day, to re-organize the GNSO or ICANN to
better ensure that we can balance all needs.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Verdana">Making the
question shorter to be clear: How are you ok with commercial capture of
a/the policy making function in iCANN, but not of the same groups (esp
GNSO) associating with others in an oversight role?
</font></blockquote><br>
To repeat, you are saying that it is captures. I did not. And the GNSO
has no power other than to recommend. Our position on accountability that
maintaining this role is essential.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Verdana">I myself
want a membership structure for ICANN oversight that goes towards new
innovations that can include ordinary Internet users in some way, as much
as practically possible. The ALAC structure if properly developed seem
the best candidate for it. Lets be bold and propose what we want to
propose, rather than getting caught in power shenanigans. I am ready to
work with you on this. Let the ALAC community assert itself. It may look
powerless but that is because it has made itself so... It is in my view
the most powerful part of ICANN if we really look towards and connect to
where its power and legitimacy comes from - the people, rather than
getting bogging down in high power games, and manipulative handling of
those who exercise power, and repeatedly keep expressing powerlessness...
And if not upto this challenge, vacate the space, say ALAC is
structurally not working - ALAC cannot keep giving the ICANN system the
legitimacy that it professes vis a vis the global Internet community.
</font></blockquote><br>
In my mind, the ALAC and At-Large is not powerless. I would not be
investing so much of my time in it if I thought it was. Nor would I be
putting in the effort if I thought no improvement was possible. It
continues to evolve and a large part of my efforts as Chair is to
increase both its effectiveness and credibility.<br><br>
Alan</body>
</html>